Edge dowsing # 2

[Edge]

Something is wrong with the forum so I'm posting this one to see if it will go right,and so my post isn't buried in the middle of the thread.



Ok Tell you what You talk the talk you set it up, before I can redo the test according to the rules, my choice
At ft-Lauderdale
With Jref.

Because I believe I can't take the test over till what is it March, say in a month or two instead.
If you can do that I will do it over again in a spot out side, down there, that I pick.
Some one has to do a barbi.

If I find it, the spot to do the test all I'll need is two pieces of gold and one stick.

Ten tries blind should do it since you know I can dowse. If you think I can't then I'll fail, 7 out of 10.

I’m not going to waste my time telling you, " its’ there In the open test" when we all know where it’s at.

You get that and I’ll do it again. No big deal right.

After all why wait a year?


:eek:

----
I’m not going to waste my time telling you, " its’ there In the open test" when we all know where it’s at.
----


It isn't a waste of time. It is so after a failure there are no excuses.

[davidhorman]

It isn't a waste of time. It is so after a failure there are no excuses.

I know it's pedantic, but Edge has amply demonstrated the above to be false. It's better to say "no justifiable excuses."

:D

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Edge
Something is wrong with the forum so I'm posting this one to see if it will go right,and so my post isn't buried in the middle of the thread.
Yes, it's a glitch in the time stamp. Most of us have already figured out how to find the recent posts.

Originally posted by Edge
Ok Tell you what You talk the talk you set it up, before I can redo the test according to the rules, my choice At ft-Lauderdale
With Jref.
What rules? Would you describe them please?

Originally posted by Edge
Because I believe I can't take the test over till what is it March, say in a month or two instead. If you can do that I will do it over again in a spot out side, down there, that I pick.
Unless you can tell us EXACTLY what you plan to do, this isn't going to happen. Remember, the rules have to be agreed on by both parties.

Originally posted by Edge

Some one has to do a barbi.
Sorry, if I am going to have sex, I prefer real women ;)
Originally posted by Edge
If I find it, the spot to do the test all I'll need is two pieces of gold and one stick.
... and several identical containers to cover the gold, right? Remember that you tend to cheat when you can see where the gold is.

Originally posted by Edge
Ten tries blind should do it since you know I can dowse. If you think I can't then I'll fail, 7 out of 10.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Would you PLEASE describe exactly what you plan to do?

If you mean to pick the correct container out of only two choices, then your average should be 50% (exactly like a coin flip). In order to have significance, you would have to perform many more than ten trials. Flipping heads 7 times out of ten is not that unusual. Flipping it 90 times out of 100 is quite unusual. Again, you would have to agree beforehand what implies statitistical significance. However, if dowsing is as accurate as you claim it to be, you should be satisfied with nothing less than 100%.

Originally posted by Edge
I’m not going to waste my time telling you, " its’ there In the open test" when we all know where it’s at.
You obviously don't understand the purpose of the "open test", Edge. It is to keep you from making excuses later, although it doesn't seem to keep you from trying to make excuses. By "finding" the gold when you know where it is, you are "tuning" your dowsing skills to make sure they are working. Why do you have a problem with this? Of course, you have to force yourself to use only your dowsing skills in the open test instead of cheating and lying as you did in the first test.

Originally posted by Edge
You get that and I’ll do it again. No big deal right.

Get what? You haven't described the test. Do what again? You haven't done anything once? Big deal? Yes it is. Maybe you are independantly wealthy, but to me, a million bucks is a very big deal.

[MRC_Hans]

Edge, for chrissake, go dowse some gold somewhere and make your own money! If you can dowse gold, where's your Caddilac?

Hans

[wert]

Re-posted from the other thread since obviously edge wants to kill that one so he can start fresh.

If you had waited until today or tomorrow, all the boards time problems would have resolved themselves.

Anyways, my last post from the other thread.


Originally posted by Edge
Ok Tell you what You talk the talk you set it up, before I can redo the test according to the rules, my choice
At ft-Lauderdale
With Jref.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Erm. No. You have to setup the test with Randi that is acceptable to you both. I'm sure you understand this now as you've filled out the challenge application once and we've explained it to you countless times.

You know, the way you did the first time when you failed miserably.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because I believe I can't take the test over till what is it March, say in a month or two instead.
If you can do that I will do it over again in a spot out side, down there, that I pick.
Some one has to do a barbi.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It's pretty obvious that you're squirming for a way to avoid a fair test by setting up some test under your terms only.

Conveniently without the input of Randi or the JREF I'm guessing?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I find it, he spot to do the test all I'll need is two pieces of gold and one stick.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IF? IF?

In other words, you're giving yourself another "out", another excuse.

We see right through you edge.

You lied blatantly before. Why should we trust you now? Wait the year, take the test fairly an then perhaps we'll consider believing you.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ten tries blind should do it since you know I can dowse.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorta like the ten blind tries you had in your first fair test?

The one that you failed? The one that you scored one lousy hit out of ten tries? That one?

Edges failure right here folks!

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You get that and I’ll do it again. No big deal right.

After all why wait a year?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah, I'll gladly wait the year to see you take a fair test administered properly by the JREF.

Attempting to setup your own test without the participation of JREF is a transparent ploy to avoid a fair re-test by Randi.

Re-apply to Randi. He expects you to. And he also expects you to fail.

Prove him wrong if you can and take his million.

Until then, you have no credibility.

We see you clearly for the liar that you are.

[Edge]

Man you guys just suck.
I will get in the closed test at least 7 of 10
Their way ten picks, Ill whip them, Ah hell I'll tell them where the 10 are in the open, there.
In my mind I'm 11 out 20.
March is a bad month talk to him he can change the rules just put it in writing.
Once I pick the spot turn me around and blind fold me then they can do their thing, Then turn me around and I won’t be happy till I get 10 of 10.
If I win we'll do it a second time and then we can go for the money, ok? Do the legwork or some thing do some thing but I need a second, any takers to watch them , this will be virgin ground??
Dig it?


I’m in no hurry until May…

Thanks for the link wart it was March.
Now you talk and lets see if he will listen to you?
Oh yea it's time for a pic.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Edge
How old are yoiu guys? .

Odd to hear you complain about juvenile behavior, Edge. Remember this post?
Originally posted by Edge
I'll set you up with tricky's sister if you want here is a picture.:D

[Flatworm]

Originally posted by Edge:

They know how to do the tests du huh!!!!!


Obviously they don't, since the test procedure must be agreed upon by both parties and you don't seem forthcoming with clear details on what rules you propose, or how to get over obvious problems with experimental controls.


You mean like this ass hole!!!!


You really should quote someone when you're going to spout invective, just so we know you're not raving at the voices in your head.

[wert]

Edge is trying an old tactic that folks use when they fail the challenge. (or simply don't want to take it)

They propose a "counter challenge", hoping they can leave it vague enough that they never have to actually take or re-take the test.

Then that person can crow that they "challenged Randi" but he wouldn't test them under their unilateral test conditions.

Face it edge.

You were tested fairly.

You agreed at the time that the conditions were "100% ok" with you.

You stated that your power was working properly in the "open" tests.

When the closed tests came you got exactly ONE correct, thus failing miserably to show that you can dowse under test conditions.

Then you come here and lie about your "powers" and spew lame excuses. "Electrical waves from behind the wall, That Randi Knew about"? "Gold" ink in the encylopedia distracting your stick?

Anyone can read about your failure right here.

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

Again if I give you the knowledge of what I know you twist it and make it fit your stasis que, so you can feel safe.


I never said it was unfair,You seem to say those things for me, only to win I would have to figure out what went wrong and I have I know how to fix that problem, if you can't accept that then it's your bad.

I can do the open with out affecting my out come in the closed test also since you think I want to change any thing to affect the out come I will do it one day without James risking his money but the second day I will go for it in spot # 2 that I will also pick..

The idea is in the field it's all closed so there is two ways of checking.

If I win then you'll want to know all the details won't you but then I won't give them.

Then I stated that if you want me to take it so badly do some thing to speed up the process because you act like you have some say or pull with Jref, get the paper work going, talk to Randi.
I'm willing to do it but it has to be before March.
But alas you really don't know the rules and they can be change if all parties agree.

Tricky sorry about the other night I was pissed off about a lot of things as there is a lot on my plate right now and I will delete the above.
That's what happenens when I have three rum and cokes, I usually do not drink.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by edgero
Again if I give you the knowledge of what I know you twist it and make it fit your stasis que, so you can feel safe.


We don't twist it, edge, we point out the errors in it. BTW, I think what you meant was "status quo", even though that is incorrect usage. Or I could be wrong. What does "stasis que" mean?


I never said it was unfair,You seem to say those things for me, only to win I would have to figure out what went wrong and I have I know how to fix that problem, if you can't accept that then it's your bad.

In this sense, "fair" means a fair test of you ability. You have stated that for various reasons, (electrical, ink etc.) it was NOT a fair test of your abilities. If you are now saying that it WAS a fair test of your abilities, then you accept the test as evidence that your abilities do not exist. Glad to hear you have come to your senses.


I can do the open with out affecting my out come in the closed test also since you think I want to change any thing to affect the out come I will do it one day without James risking his money but the second day I will go for it in spot # 2 that I will also pick..
All this rambling. Would you please tell us exactly what you propose?


The idea is in the field it's all closed so there is two ways of checking.
Of which you have only described one, and that description was so full of gibberish that even a geologist (which I am) could not understand it.


If I win then you'll want to know all the details won't you but then I won't give them.
LOL. Do you seriously think Randi (or anyone) will agree to a test where you don't give details of what you are going to do? Those aliens must have left some sort of implant in your brain that blocks out logic.


Then I stated that if you want me to take it so badly do some thing to speed up the process because you act like you have some say or pull with Jref, get the paper work going, talk to Randi.
I'm willing to do it but it has to be before March.
But alas you really don't know the rules and they can be change if all parties agree.
I have never met Randi or any member of JREF, but I would say that you first have to fill out the entry form. You have done this before, so you know what you need to tell him. The most important thing is to describe exactly what you are going to do and how it can be determined (without judging) whether or not your results were accurate. As I recall, this took MANY emails between you and Randi the first time, and Idoubt he wants to do that again. Since you should have the procedure down pat now, you can speed things up considerably by following the same pattern as was agreed upon last time.

Have you thought about my suggestion that you repeat the exact same kind of test in a field that you have determined is gold-free and interference free? That would be by far the easiest thing, and would speed things up tremendously.


Tricky sorry about the other night I was pissed off about a lot of things as there is a lot on my plate right now and I will delete the above.
That's what happenens when I have three rum and cokes, I usually do not drink.
Thank you Edge. It takes a big man to apologize. I have always said you were a nice guy. I truly hope you acquire critical thinking skills.

Best of luck.

[NightG1]

Originally posted by edgero
Again if I give you the knowledge of what I know you twist it and make it fit your stasis que, so you can feel safe.....

Is there something paranormal about the ALCOA logo? Oh, I know - "A" for alien - my bad.

[Edge]

No it's my product of choice. You guys are jumpy...
But it does remind me of space invaders remember the game?

I don’t think there’s any thing about dowsing that’s paranormal either.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Edge
I don’t think there’s any thing about dowsing that’s paranormal either.
Well, you're right in a sense, because dowsing doesn't work. If it did work it would be paranormal.

[wert]

Originally posted by edgero
Again if I give you the knowledge of what I know you twist it and make it fit your stasis que, so you can feel safe.Um, no Status Quo here. We just want you to prove that you're not lying to us about the test being fair or not.
I never said it was unfair,You seem to say those things for me, only to win I would have to figure out what went wrong and I have I know how to fix that problem, if you can't accept that then it's your bad.Was the test fair or not?

It is a yes/no answer. No more rambling excuses please.

Also,

Did you or did you not agree that the conditions for dowsing were okay before you started the test?

I can do the open with out affecting my out come in the closed test also since you think I want to change any thing to affect the out come I will do it one day without James risking his money but the second day I will go for it in spot # 2 that I will also pick.. Ah, how sweet of you to insist on a time limit and very restrictive unilateral conditions for your next self imposed "test".

You won't have any credibilty at all until you agree on fair re-test conditions with Randi and then prove your ability under Randi's fair test.

But you've shown us that you have nothing but excuses.

All this nonsense about "randi has to come to the field with me", "Randi has to re-test me before march" etc. are just a transparent ploy on your part to save face rather than admit the truth.

Your dowsing "powers" simply don't exist.

If they did, you'd be a million bucks richer now after passing the fair test that you claimed you were 100% ready to take.


If I win then you'll want to know all the details won't you but then I won't give them.I'm not exactly holding my breath till you "win".

Then I stated that if you want me to take it so badly do some thing to speed up the process because you act like you have some say or pull with Jref, get the paper work going, talk to Randi.Um. No. It's your burden to prove you're not lying about your dowsing powers. Trying to put the repsonsibility on someone else or Randi is just avoiding the re-test.


I'm willing to do it but it has to be before March.
But alas you really don't know the rules and they can be change if all parties agree.
Ah, a time limit to save face since you know you have to wait a full year for a re-test.

And you know that rules can be agreed upon by you and Randi. You did it before and you can do it again. Unless of course you're afraid of the fair re-test by Randi hmmm?

Just for fun, Here's a bit of a compendium of excuses from Edge concerning his failure to dowse under fair test conditions that he agreed to. Some of these seem to indicate that JREF is "deleting his threads" and other such nonsense also...

And why not refresh yourself with a nice article by Randi outlining Mike G's Complete failure to prove that he has dowsing abilities.

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

Please note this list is not complete. There's more, but this should be a good sampling.



Now, following the tests, Mike said that he'd found, all through the trials, that his stick was being "distracted" by the "gold" lettering on a double set of the Encyclopaedia Britannica on the shelves located near cups #1 and #2. Remember, he'd "tuned" his forked stick specifically to react to gold. We told him later that there was no gold in that location, either, since the book lettering is done with a bronze-powder ink.


I can prove it day after day in the field does he have the stamina?
After all he's about 80 or so.

I don't need no open test the second time around as they now know I can dowse.

You’re tiring to discredit me because I failed to win.

Behind the books in that spot on the other side of the wall I believe was a good size copy machine and scanner, I'm not sure but it was about 3 or 4 feet tall or on a desk.

From my point of view this is information not excuses.
Call it what you like if it makes you safe in your room!

As this happened I was trying to learn the difference in the attractions, the one holding and the ones that were not that were showing attraction. There are many reasons for it doing that. In my house here, there was more interferences, it was worse, at the foundation it was way better but interferences were there too just not as bad.

Dowsing for gold occurs were its mined not in an office, there the success rate is 100%.

He said he had always been successful in detecting each and all of these seventeen items, when his forked stick was specifically "tuned" to pick up gold (stated before tuning up his stick and failing miserably)


I had three threads one was deleted by me and the other two, Well not by me.

I'll give you a hint, behind the wall is something with electrical fields running through it., James knows what’s behind the wall.

I don't know if the date that I can go back to the foundation for retesting is going to interfere with my plans, understand?


I thought the conditions would be acceptable and I could over come that false readings or interferences, after going through all the trouble I was determined to try, you just don't have a clue as to what drives me but after just checking the room before the pilimanary test I all ready knew I was going to have a hard time of it.


Some times money doesn't mean nothing compared to making an attempt at pleasing everybody, that is the best way I can put it.
It's what you try to do for others that is worth more than money by not following my dreams for the moment I have made my own people happy that I’m here, Understand?

You can see the target, if i said it's over there when it's obviously in 3 not 9 then I would be crazy and the test would be over because of my blindness to the real world.
LMAO.


James has a couple of things wrong here, now that you mention it.

Since you don't believe me ask James about all the extra readings?

It's the Jref office I never said he did anything to sabotage me.
Hell my house was the same, did I sabotage my self? It’s self-evident if you dowse.
They have many things that can interfere there.

In the open test it's visible and I had to show that there was an attraction there, but there were still attractions were it was not.

It wasn't total (success) it was as good as I could do in the office.

The foundation explains it in scientific medical terms that make that knowledge a dead end.

(Randi)Just forgetful, like any one else.

Maybe then but now I know better, you have to fail sometimes to get it right. (When asked if he initially approved of the test conditions)

If you want to prove something then lets go to the field where dowsing for gold occurs what your not scared are you?

These are things that I know, most things on the list are found in pockets or cracks containing gold in the field they are dowsed together, in real life they are not together and that’s when miss readings occur do you want the list again?

But I was talking about electrical fields that are all through their office not including other points of attraction.

They are running a computer related business think of the amount of machinery that's there producing electrical fields one of the major attractions.

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

[Edge]

Um, no Status Quo here. We just want you to prove that you're not lying to us about the test being fair or not.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never said it was unfair, You seem to say those things for me, only to win I would have to figure out what went wrong and I have I know how to fix that problem, if you can't accept that then it's your bad.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Was the test fair or not?


It's a fair test but not in an office.

I do not tune a fork I tune a guitar, you can tune a piano but not a fish.

You know wart I already accepted defeat why you would want to bring it up in the first place after it was talked about BEFORE, especially on a U.F.O. thread is beyond me except to discredit that thread.

People must be listening to that thread with as many hits as it has.

I get it now 4000 plus readers how does that make you feel?
Jealous?


Look I will take the test for the 2100th time if it doesn't interfere with my plans and to show you that those plans are real I will e-mail you from my destination.
Not you or this or Randi will stop my destiny to mine again.
Only one person knows why I took the test and what my reasons were and he’s not talking I knew before I left that it may be tuff, it’s not tuff in the field.

If I move from Florida to California then the test should be done there in the field.
If it is not then I will document what I do and show it to the world.
Do you think that I will drop every thing to come back to Florida? You must be insane. You must be insane and obsessed with something about my U.F.O. thread.
Is my talking about it bothering you?

Not You or Jref will not win in the field.
It’s so simple!
I find it, and then I tell you that there is no more, it doesn’t matter if it’s a few specks or a pocket full of nuggets TWO WAYS OF CHECKING MY READINGS IF I FAIL AT EITHER OF THOSE TWO WAYS I LOOSE.
IF I GO TO Lauderdale I will do it outside and then I will win.
Million dollars doesn’t mean **** to me if I am on my way to mine and live there.
I would rather live there and be poor than to spend another minute in Florida.
Especially in Lauderdale have you been there?
In my hometown in Calli, I could hit a million in the creek.

The guy that taught me to dowse, asked me a question, did I like to mine?
I said yes but that it was hard to be consistent.
He said I'll teach you how to dowse so that you'll never have to turn a shovel with out it holding.
Damn if he wasn't right. There is nothing you can say that can change the truth in that statement because I lived it for 6 years, maybe this will penetrate that thick skull of yours?
If you want to see it in action then you have to mine, can it be proved under a controlled environment?
May be but not in a building.
Various properties inside and outside down here in Florida I got varying results, outside in Lauderdale was the best as far as lack of anomalies in the ground so I would say that it might be a fair test outside but I’ll have to check it and see and that will take time and energy along with money to blow. You want to help with that?
Oh yea that’s not why your doing this because when it comes to that you all tuck your tails and run…

Do you think that I would go back there to the gold fields with out knowing that knowledge and that he was right?
Leave my job?

You asked what happened remember? I didn't just start spouting off excuses, we weren't even discussing dowsing, When I gave you information on how I look at it, then you charged me with excuses.

But you brought it up Du hu.

If you think you can go to a river and just start pulling gold up where ever you set in your sadly mistaken every year after the snow and fall rains it gets blown out of one spot and sent to another not all but most.
It is a daunting task to tie into a good line that's holding. Until you work the ground you will not know what’s there. I wont know geologists wont know and Randi and Jref wont know it’s the fairest way of testing, how simple can it be?

Book knowledge is good for basics but you need an EDGE.

If you even think this discredits the UFO phenomenon you are mistaken and deluded.
I will post all new evidence there as I find it.

You guys do the same thing there, claim that I think they are all E.Ts, but in reality they can be explained as natural or man made, the other categories that they fall into are E.Ts., angels, fallen angels, time travelers, living creatures, ball lightning, geological events such as plate tectonics, like dowsing there are many loop holes that I don’t even know about and am learning every day but unlike you all I have done it, and seen it, and witnessed it THEN YOU WILL REALLY NEVER to a certain extent KNOW FOR SURE.
I’M JUST A LITTLE FARTHER ALONG.

[Flatworm]

I find it, and then I tell you that there is no more, it doesn’t matter if it’s a few specks or a pocket full of nuggets TWO WAYS OF CHECKING MY READINGS IF I FAIL AT EITHER OF THOSE TWO WAYS I LOOSE.


The problem is that one of those ways (i.e. digging up the site and trying to find if there's still gold) is not paranormal or even remarkable in any way. Why do you insist on tying the two methods together? Why won't you let us test your dowsing ability on its own?

[wert]

Originally posted by Wert
Was the test fair or not?


It's a fair test but not in an office.Ah, but you hammered out the details of the test in great detail with Randi.

Now you want to have it both ways? The test is "fair", but also "unfair" because it was in his office?

Either it was fair or it wasn't. Sounds to me like you're saying it was "unfair" since Randi and you did the test in the office. You could have easily have changed this in your initial setup of the test, but chose not to do so.

So you're lying again. And we all can see it.

And here's the full text of edge's failure to dowse for all those interested

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html


I do not tune a fork I tune a guitar, you can tune a piano but not a fish.Sigh.

So, you're claiming that Randi was Lying when he quoted you thusly?
He said he had always been successful in detecting each and all of these seventeen items, when his forked stick was specifically "tuned" to pick up gold — by having a small scrap of gold fastened to its tip.

You know wart I already accepted defeat why you would want to bring it up in the first place after it was talked about BEFORE, especially on a U.F.O. thread is beyond me except to discredit that thread.We're discussing it in this thread now. I've not posted on word about dowsing on the "UFO thread" since I found out this thread existed.

And whilst you claim to "accept defeat" you don't have the honesty to simply admit that you can't dowse under fair test conditions that you agreed to "100%"

I get it now 4000 plus readers how does that make you feel?
Jealous?Nah, makes me feel great!

You're kind of forgetting the fact that all those 4000 views expose readers to our skewering of your lies. I hope we get even more views! :)

Look I will take the test for the 2100th time if it doesn't interfere with my plans and to show you that those plans are real I will e-mail you from my destination.Ah, but the question is,

"Will you take the test at JREF under conditions agreed upon by Randi and yourself?"

And don't think we don't notice you qualifying your acceptance to take a fair test with weasel words like "If it doesn't interfere with my plans". bleh. We know you're just saying that to give yourself an "out" from actually taking the test with Randi again. :rolleyes:


Not you or this or Randi will stop my destiny to mine again.
Only one person knows why I took the test and what my reasons were and he’s not talking I knew before I left that it may be tuff, it’s not tuff in the field.Nonsense. Another conspiracy theory I suppose? You took the test and failed for mysterious reasons only known to one man? Another excuse heard.

If I move from Florida to California then the test should be done there in the field.
If it is not then I will document what I do and show it to the world.I'm sure you and Randi could work something out.

JREF has members living in California who I'm sure would be willing to supervise a fair test with terms agreed upon by you and Randi.

Saying you'll "Self-test" is just an another smokescreen attempt to hide from taking the test fairly again.

We see right through these evasions edge.

Do you think that I will drop every thing to come back to Florida? You must be insane. You must be insane and obsessed with something about my U.F.O. thread.Hm, well, as I stated above, I'm sure you could take the test nearly anywhere you live with proper consent of Randi and the JREF.

But we know this is just another excuse. Ho Hum.


Is my talking about it bothering you?Nope.


Not You or Jref will not win in the field. Sure, let Randi setup a new test that is acceptable to both of you. Doesn't matter a darn bit if it's in a field. Under fair test conditions, you'll fail again.


I find it, and then I tell you that there is no more, it doesn’t matter if it’s a few specks or a pocket full of nuggets TWO WAYS OF CHECKING MY READINGS IF I FAIL AT EITHER OF THOSE TWO WAYS I LOOSE.Hm, stretching out the test to two days and imposing your unilateral conditions seems like another BS way to avoid taking the test. Excuses excuses....

IF I GO TO Lauderdale I will do it outside and then I will win.*noticing the big "IF" here as Edge tries to wriggle his way out of a fair re-test*

Million dollars doesn’t mean **** to me if I am on my way to mine and live there.Irrelevant to the question of whether you can sucessfully dowse under fair test conditions agreed to by yourself.

In my hometown in Calli, I could hit a million in the creek.Who cares? Let's just see you take a fair re-test with randi and prove that you're not lying to us and *sadly* yourself about your dowsing "powers"....

---------Lots of random anectdotal nonsense snipped.


You asked what happened remember? I didn't just start spouting off excuses, we weren't even discussing dowsing, When I gave you information on how I look at it, then you charged me with excuses.A pretty good sampling of your excuses are in my last post for the world to see.


I wont know geologists wont know and Randi and Jref wont know it’s the fairest way of testing, how simple can it be?So you're claiming that Randi and the JREF will never know enough about dowsing to fairly test you?

dingdingdingding! We got another excuse here folks!

Book knowledge is good for basics but you need an EDGE.Implying what? Unless you buy into the "reality" of dowsing you can't fairly test it? Double bleh.

...the other categories that they fall into are E.Ts., angels, fallen angels, time travelers, ... like dowsing there are many loop holes that I don’t even know about and am learning every day but unlike you all I have done it, and seen it, and witnessed it....
So you're now telling us that you have a firm belief in E.T.'s, Angels, Fallen Angels, and Time Travellers in addition to dowsing? Is there anything you won't believe edge? :)

THEN YOU WILL REALLY NEVER to a certain extent KNOW FOR SURE.I'm sorry edge, but we can't just take your word on this. Prove it to us. Pass a fair dowsing re-test with Randi and we'll extend you some credibility. Right now you pretty much have none.

I’M JUST A LITTLE FATHER ALONG. Suuuure you are.

Those all caps sentences really convince! Taking lessons from Bigfig?

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

[Edge]

Flatworm said,"The problem is that one of those ways (i.e. digging up the site and trying to find if there's still gold) is not paranormal or even remarkable in any way. Why do you insist on tying the two methods together? Why won't you let us test your dowsing ability on its own?"

You guys still don't get it?
I dowse for a spot then as I go I dowse again till I'm sure that I have it all when it's gone,"in My mind", You check it, and it will be, according to me gone.
There are more places to look natural traps,If you think it's there and I say it's not you can check it that way also,three ways of checking acually. There are more traps that are not holding then there are holding.....

It's not that hard to do,a whole series of different test could be done in one or two days.
If you really want to learn all about it this is where it counts unknown quantites and unknown places.
Wart If I have x- ray vision then it's not fair, I do not know what's under the ground nor does James or jref or any other minner.

I did an experiment with a metal detector in side a building and it does the same thing false readings all over the place I used an under water version! Do you know why?

[Flatworm]

Originally posted by Edge

You guys still don't get it?
I dowse for a spot then as I go I dowse again till I'm sure that I have it all when it's gone,"in My mind", You check it, and it will be, according to me gone.
There are more places to look natural traps,If you think it's there and I say it's not you can check it that way also,three ways of checking acually. There are more traps that are not holding then there are holding.....


I think you're the one who's 'not getting it'. What's stopping you from checking these 'natural traps' yourself as you mine? It would seem foolish for you not to, since you are after all supposed to be looking for gold.


How are we supposed to separate the information you get from mining from the information you get from dowsing?



I did an experiment with a metal detector in side a building and it does the same thing false readings all over the place I used an under water version! Do you know why?

Irrelevant, because you agreed beforehand the test was fair and scored 100% accuracy on the open test. Did you lie when you agreed the test was fair?

[De_Bunk]

Edge...

Randi does not set out to prove you are lying...

The tests are designed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt the apllicants claimed skill...

Setting up an unfair playing field...and then winning is only deceiving yourself...

How would you feel if you went to Randi...took the challenge ...and passed..

Your name would be known everywhere..

Plus you would be a million dollars richer...

The way you want to do it...gets you nothing...

Id say wait till you can re-test with Randi...

Try and hone these skills you say you have...

Theres a million dollars at stake...and it doesnt cost you a cent to try...

If Randi lost the million to a Dowsing claim..from that minute on ...i'd believe in it totally and sing its praises...

[Tricky]

Edge, you have already shown us that your dowsing skills cannot differentiate between gold, aluminum, gold colored ink, manganese, electrical fields, or quartz (and the energy therein). Are there any other things that will give you a false reading? How can you differentiate them in the field if you can't differentiate them in the office?

The quartz one is particularly interesting. What do you suppose is the most common mineral in the crust of the earth? Why it's quartz, of course, which you would know if you had even a beginner's knowledge of geology. All of those rocks you're finding gold in are just lousy with quartz. It is not distributed evenly, so you can't make any "it's just background noise" excuse.

So why will you not accept the easiest method which I proposed?
1) Find an area where you "douse" there is no gold.
2) Repeat the same test you took before.

I truly would like a response to this, explaining why this would or would not be a fair test of your abilities. It would appear to the casual observer that you are afraid to take a fair test because you know, deep down inside, that it doesn't work.

[wert]

Originally posted by Edge

Wart If I have x- ray vision then it's not fair, I do not know what's under the ground nor does James or jref or any other minner.
Irrelevant. You couldn't see what what was in the JREF mugs during the test either and you failed miserably to find targets that you claimed you had "100% accuracy" in locating via dowsing. I never said you needed "x-ray vision.

You just need to be able to use your self professed ability to dowse.

You failed once and now all we get from you are excuses and evasions. It's pretty evident that you're afraid to work with Randi and take a proper re-test under conditions agreeable to JREF and yourself.

You claim one minute that the test is fair, then you obfuscate the manner by saying "but not in an office!".

You can't have it both ways. The test was fair or it wasn't.

But of course you agreed to be tested in an office, so it seems pretty silly for you to use it as an excuse after the fact.

You could have easily have told Randi that "electrical waves" from his copier were sabotaging your dowsing skills.

I'm sure he would have gladly taken the test outside or somewhere more amenable to you.

You agreed to the test conditions "100%" and you failed.

As anyone can see right here.
http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

[Edge]

Tricky said,
So why will you not accept the easiest method which I proposed?
1) Find an area where you "dowse" there is no gold.
2) Repeat the same test you took before.

Well yea I said if I go to Lauderdale I would do that, outside in a park. Deep down inside Tricky I know that it works when nothing else does. My other miner friend Carl S. sent those quartz rocks and he said that he could only find them in two places in the county; they are not like other quartz, as far as I know. I’ll have to check that.

Hey De-bunk my favorite loony skeptic.

De-bunk yes we would have to talk, James and I will have to talk, there’s time but it might run out that’s why I’m thinking if he has time and I’m gone he could come up there, but that hasn’t even been talked about yet between us.
It all would depend on if he wanted to make a little more out of it like a vacation.
He does talk to the guy that taught me “Tim P.,” to dowse and that would be a good meeting of minds along with some hunting and fishing and of course some mining, that’s if he’s even interested.
If you go to the field it will shock you if you are not lucky, how long it will take you to hit gold mining with book knowledge. Oh you’ll get a little bit but it will cost you to run that way.

Wart damn you are just obnoxious, You keep twisting my words Look I failed so from my perspective not yours I have to figure out what went wrong that’s the facts, from my perspective It works from yours it doesn’t so then it’s up to me to figure out, not you. They are not excuses but me trying to put some logical explanation to the reasons why indoors it seems difficult.
Again I practiced in two places down here and got worst results and better results than at James office his results were in-between the other results.

I told you about doing it with a metal detector, under water type, and I got some interesting results with that, it tells me that even a machine that’s suppose to find metals such as gold or iron is fooled too.
Simply because of the pig wire and rebar in a concert slab, in one place it will work and another you can’t tell the difference you will get similar results as dowsing for gold inside.
Yes those experiments are relevant to me.

Let me clarify one more thing when I asked about the books they were in line of what was causing the reaction when I asked he said what I needed to know, then I had to look past the wall, the other side, for me that explained that.
Damn easy to understand isn’t it.
Never the less as soon as you put the gold in the end of the stick water is not detected that has to mean something.
Take the gold out and all you will detect is water.
In the field you will find Iron lead gold and a few other things that are hevey enough to get trapped with gold the reason why I used different things for that most possible closeness to what happens in the field. And a couple of new things to give me an advantage.

I didn’t go all that way to not try, I found out something else but you will say it’s an excuse so I won’t tell you but it will be a great advantage to me so it’s a secret in case I go to Lauderdale again. I might but not till I talk to the Jref team dig it I knew that you could!

Flatworm said, I think you're the one who's 'not getting it'. What's stopping you from checking these 'natural traps' yourself as you mine? It would seem foolish for you not to, since you are after all supposed to be looking for gold.
Well yea I dowse those spots as I go but when you look at the ground you can tell if it’s been touched or not if it’s not showing to hold I pass it by. There’s a line of gold or really several that you can follow up the creek and as you go some are holding some are not.
I have gone back to check and it’s always true that it’s not worth digging or dredging.
Especially when you’re hitting ounces every day and if you move off the line that’s producing it’s a waste of time and energy.
You don’t take the whole river or creek out?

I don’t know where in Canada you live but go do some mining and you’ll understand the daunting task of hitting the jackpot.
Of course read the books first I did that, it’s the information you need for common sense and try it it’s fun and the best job I ever had.

It wasn’t a hobby for me it was how I made a living and not to many can say that.
:p

[wert]

Originally posted by Edge
Deep down inside Tricky I know that it works when nothing else does. It doesn't matter a damn bit what you "know".

We have lots of evidence that you can't dowse and absolutely no evidence that you can.

Your failure is here for all to see.

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

De-bunk yes we would have to talk, James and I will have to talk, there’s time but it might run out that’s why I’m thinking if he has time and I’m gone he could come up there, but that hasn’t even been talked about yet between us.Hm. Imposing a time limit again? What a convenient way of avoiding a second fair re-test with Randi and JREF's input. We've heard this excuse before.


He does talk to the guy that taught me “Tim P.,” to dowse and that would be a good meeting of minds along with some hunting and fishing and of course some mining, that’s if he’s even interested.So if your friend "Tim P." is such a fine dowser, why doesn't he prove a point and take Randi's million? Perhaps he's self deluded about his "powers" also?


Wart damn you are just obnoxious, No, obnoxious is you lying and evading honest questions about your abject failure to prove your abilities under fair test conditions accepted 100% by yourself.

You keep twisting my wordsNope, I presented a list of your lame excuses verbatim.

Look I failed so from my perspective not yours I have to figure out what went wrong that’s the facts, from my perspective It works from yours it doesn’t so then it’s up to me to figure out, not you. You failed period.
And I can even tell you why.

You have no dowsing powers. They're an illusion, a self delusion on your part.

Wanna shut me up? Set up another fair re-test with Randi. And advance past the preliminary stage.

None of this crap about "self testing" your skills means a thing.


They are not excuses but me trying to put some logical explanation to the reasons why indoors it seems difficult.Bleh. I printed a huge list of these excuses and you still deny them? It wasn't only "being inside" that you used as an excuse.

It was nonsense like "the gold ink in the encylopedias distracted my stick" or "There's something behind that wall that randi knows about".

These aren't excuses? Then I guess dowsing isn't the only thing you self delude yourself about. pffffffffffffffffft.

Again I practiced in two places down here and got worst results and better results than at James office his results were in-between the other results.At his place, you got exactly one correct in the actual test. If that's "in between" you must have struck out completely in one of your "self tests"

Yes those experiments are relevant to me.But completely irrelevant to us.

Pass the challenge, then we'll listen to you.

Let me clarify one more thing when I asked about the books they were in line of what was causing the reaction when I asked he said what I needed to know, then I had to look past the wall, the other side, for me that explained that. Ahhh, so now you change your story. Now we know it was the evil copy machine that sabotaged you correct? Another lame excuse you can't stop repeating :rolleyes:

I notice that whatever was behind the wall sure didn't stop you from passing your "open test" with 100% accuracy. In fact, take a look at this quote regarding the open test

(4) The performer has the opportunity of deciding for himself — in the "open" tests — whether it's his powers, or just his foreknowledge of the answer, that is actually at work. Mike was convinced of the former. So you're going to deny this was the case? I'm just dying to hear you say that Randi misquoted or misunderstood you because of how old he is. But wait, we've already heard that excuse haven't we?

Damn easy to understand isn’t it.Quite easy to understand you'd rather evade and make increasingly lame excuses rather than face defeat a second time in a fair challenge with Randi.

Once again, you claim you knew before the test that it would be "difficult". So why not change the terms of the test when you could? Why did you go through with it if you felt the test wasn't fair? And why won't you give us a simple yes/no answer to this question.

"was the test fair or wasn't it?"

And not trying to have it both ways with junk statements like "Well, it was fair, but also unfair because it was inside."

I didn’t go all that way to not try,Sure, and Randi would have let you adjust the conditions when you got there if you had requested.

Don't try to blame your failure on cirumstances beyond your control. You weren't a victim. Randi bent over backwards to make a fair test for you and even as late as the actual test, I know he would have made any adjustments you felt were needed as long as it didn't affect the fairness of the test.

I found out something else but you will say it’s an excuse so I won’t tell youAnother convenient lie probably. But since you "won't tell" then I guess it's irrelevant eh?

but it will be a great advantage to me so it’s a secret in case I go to Lauderdale again. I might but not till I talk to the Jref team dig it I knew that you could!Do you actually believe you're required to go to lauderdale to take the test? Randi has JREF'ers all over the U.S. that can do the prelim re-test on you. All this nonsense about "not having the time" or "not being able to travel to lauderdale" are transparent excuses again.


Tricky asked you a very valid question

So why will you not accept the easiest method which I proposed?
1) Find an area where you "douse" there is no gold.
2) Repeat the same test you took before.

I'd be very curious what you think of his suggestion.

[Tricky]

Wert has already addressed most of these points, so I'l keep it relatively short.
Originally posted by Edge
Tricky said,
So why will you not accept the easiest method which I proposed?
1) Find an area where you "dowse" there is no gold.
2) Repeat the same test you took before.

Well yea I said if I go to Lauderdale I would do that, outside in a park. Deep down inside Tricky I know that it works when nothing else does.
So are you saying then that you accept this methodology? Good that's a first step.

Originally posted by Edge
My other miner friend Carl S. sent those quartz rocks and he said that he could only find them in two places in the county; they are not like other quartz, as far as I know. I’ll have to check that.

The "energy" you are describing is piezoelectricity, defined as
pi.e.zo.elec.tric.i.ty
: electricity or electric polarity due to pressure especially in a crystalline substance (as quartz)[/quartz]
It exists in every crystal of quartz. It is the thing that makes quartz watches so accurate. It is nothing paranormal.
Originally posted by Edge

If you go to the field it will shock you if you are not lucky, how long it will take you to hit gold mining with book knowledge. Oh you’ll get a little bit but it will cost you to run that way.
I would bet on a metamorphic geologist to beat you every time in the field. I am a sedimentary geologist and I confess I don't know enough about mining to find gold. But I must say that your lack of wealth makes it pretty obvious that it takes you quite a long time to find gold too.

Originally posted by Edge
They are not excuses but me trying to put some logical explanation to the reasons why indoors it seems difficult.
They are excuses. Just because you believe them makes them no less excuses. An honorable man would admit that.




Originally posted by Edge
Let me clarify one more thing when I asked about the books they were in line of what was causing the reaction when I asked he said what I needed to know, then I had to look past the wall, the other side, for me that explained that.
Damn easy to understand isn’t it.
No, a damned obvious excuse, but I'm quite sure it "explained" it to you because you have no powers of critical thought. Why would the books be in the way if the wall itself was not in the way? Why would it even matter, since they were not "in the way" of the target. What's the range on your dowsing skills, by the way?

Originally posted by Edge
I told you about doing it with a metal detector, under water type, and I got some interesting results with that, it tells me that even a machine that’s suppose to find metals such as gold or iron is fooled too.

I tell you what? Why don't you give some third party some of your gold and let them hide it on the beach, then go head-to-head with a person with a metal detector? Winner keeps the gold.




Originally posted by Edge
I didn’t go all that way to not try, I found out something else but you will say it’s an excuse so I won’t tell you but it will be a great advantage to me so it’s a secret in case I go to Lauderdale again. I might but not till I talk to the Jref team dig it I knew that you could!
Ah! A secret weapon. Well bring it on, Mike. I'm confident it won't change the results.
Originally posted by Edge

It wasn’t a hobby for me it was how I made a living and not to many can say that.
Why did you stop using it as your primary source of income?

[Edge]

One day I decided to check under the road which runs north and south through town it parallels the river for about five miles, the river has meandered back and forth from east to west crossing the road and depositing gold along it's path ways for thousands of years, It now flows along the east side of that valley.

The road is kind of in the middle of the valley.
We figured any cracks that go from east to west would be good traps if they lie under the road and that they would be prehistoric traps with lots of gold in them never touched or mined.
Guess what?
There is a lot there, as we traveled down the road Carl and I dowsed together and the attraction was the same for both of us and the sticks would pick up a major load, as we approached then it would stay locked on it and keep pointing and rotating till another load was picked up, the result was a spinning action as we passed at a certain speed.

You had to hold it with out gripping to allow it to do this.
The ends were touching into the palms of the hands, I know with that kind of contact you aren't going to grip and there is no way for any muscle under the skin to work against that kind of leverage try it at home see if you can do it purposely?

Don't forget to put a peice of counter weight in the end, 2 or 3 grams, and try to hold it out parrellel to the ground, ends of the sitck in the palms of your hands.

I will document this experiment on film when I get there.

[wert]

Originally posted by Edge
One day I decided to check under the road which runs north and south through town it parallels the river for about five miles, the river has meandered back and forth from east to west crossing the road and depositing gold along it's path ways for thousands of years, It now flows along the east side of that valley.

-----------repeated nonsense snipped.


Don't forget to put a peice of counter weight in the end, 2 or 3 grams, and try to hold it out parrellel to the ground, ends of the sitck in the palms of your hands.

I will document this experiment on film when I get there. Um, edge.

You already posted this nonsense nearly verbatim in this thread.

Your "self tests" mean less than nothing to us.

Pass the prelim test stage with JREF and we'll listen to you. All this other talk of "well I can document that it works when I'm alone" crap just doesn't wash.


It's a rambling bit that in no way answers for your failure to pass a fair test that you agreed 100% with and helped set up yourself.

Nor does anything in this post address your evasions and lies concerning re-taking the test with JREF.

bleh.

Everyone can see that your lame excuses to Randi and us only point out how self delusional you are....

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

I wonder if dowsing works.

Nope.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Edge
One day I decided to check under the road which runs north and south through town it parallels the river for about five miles, the river has meandered back and forth from east to west crossing the road and depositing gold along it's path ways for thousands of years, It now flows along the east side of that valley.

So you are looking for placer deposits? Before you seemed to be describing looking for lode gold. Do you know the difference?

Originally posted by Edge
Guess what?
There is a lot there...

How much? You may use ounces or dollars-worth. Don't worry, since you haven't told us a location, we won't go steal it. BTW. Did you have mineral rights to the places you were looking, or were you stealing it from the people who owned the land?

Originally posted by Edge
You had to hold it with out gripping to allow it to do this.
The ends were touching into the palms of the hands, I know with that kind of contact you aren't going to grip and there is no way for any muscle under the skin to work against that kind of leverage try it at home see if you can do it purposely?
Interesting. Earlier you told us how the attraction nearly ripped the rod from your hands. So the effect is different in different places? What causes the difference? How do you know which technique to use?

Originally posted by Edge
I will document this experiment on film when I get there.
I look forward to it. Especially the part where you unearth huge amounts of gold.

[Flatworm]

Well yea I dowse those spots as I go but when you look at the ground you can tell if it’s been touched or not if it’s not showing to hold I pass it by. There’s a line of gold or really several that you can follow up the creek and as you go some are holding some are not.
I have gone back to check and it’s always true that it’s not worth digging or dredging.
Especially when you’re hitting ounces every day and if you move off the line that’s producing it’s a waste of time and energy.
You don’t take the whole river or creek out?


This doesn't address how we're supposed to separate the information you gain from dowsing from the information you gain from mining.


Tricky's proposal is a good one. You go over an area and certify that your dowsing finds no gold there. We then repeat the experiment you did at the JREF.

[Crossbow]

To: Edge

Let me try to make this simple as possible.

If you can dowse gold,

Then go dowse some gold!

You would be able to make millions of dollars and not have to worry about Randi, JREF, or anyone else in the Forum.

Good luck!

[wert]

*hearing the sound of crickets*

[Edge]

This doesn't address how we're supposed to separate the information you gain from dowsing from the information you gain from mining.

Even in the field there are blank spots many blank spots the test should be done there where gold is dowsed for.

Many ways of checking.

Wart said,"*hearing the sound of crickets*"

No body likes annoying idiots who constantly spam there veiws we know your veiws if you do not what to hear what mine are don't ask.

How skeptics think,
<> Portray science not as an open-ended process of discovery but as a holy war against unruly hordes of quackery- worshipping infidels. Since in war the ends justify the means, you may fudge, stretch or violate the scientific method, or even omit it entirely, in the name of defending the scientific method.

<> Keep your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible. This will "send the message" that accepted theory overrides any actual evidence that might challenge it--and that therefore no such evidence is worth examining.

<> Reinforce the popular misconception that certain subjects are inherently unscientific. In other words, deliberately confuse the *process* of science with the *content* of science. (Someone may, of course, object that since science is a universal approach to truth-seeking it must be neutral to subject matter; hence, only the investigative *process* can be scientifically responsible or irresponsible. If that happens, dismiss such objections using a method employed successfully by generations of politicians: simply reassure everyone that "there is no contradiction here!")

<> Arrange to have your message echoed by persons of authority. The degree to which you can stretch the truth is directly proportional to the prestige of your mouthpiece.

<> Always refer to unorthodox statements as "claims," which are "touted," and to your own assertions as "facts," which are "stated."

<> Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to say with impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such ridiculous claims!" (Note that this technique has withstood the test of time, and dates back at least to the age of Galileo. By simply refusing to look through his telescope, the ecclesiastical authorities bought the Church over three centuries' worth of denial free and clear!)

<> If examining the evidence becomes unavoidable, report back that "there is nothing new here!" If confronted by a watertight body of evidence that has survived the most rigorous tests, simply dismiss it as being "too pat."

<> Equate the necessary skeptical component of science with *all* of science. Emphasize the narrow, stringent, rigorous and critical elements of science to the exclusion of intuition, inspiration, exploration and integration. If anyone objects, accuse them of viewing science in exclusively fuzzy, subjective or metaphysical terms.

<> Insist that the progress of science depends on explaining the unknown in terms of the known. In other words, science equals reductionism. You can apply the reductionist approach in any situation by discarding more and more and more evidence until what little is left can finally be explained entirely in terms of established knowledge.

<> Downplay the fact that free inquiry and legitimate disagreement are a normal part of science.

<> Make yourself available to media producers who seek "balanced reporting" of unorthodox views. However, agree to participate in only those presentations whose time constraints and a-priori bias preclude such luxuries as discussion, debate and cross-examination.

<> At every opportunity reinforce the notion that what is familiar is necessarily rational. The unfamiliar is therefore irrational, and consequently inadmissible as evidence.

<> State categorically that the unconventional may be dismissed as, at best, an honest misinterpretation of the conventional.

<> Characterize your opponents as "uncritical believers." Summarily dismiss the notion that debunkery itself betrays uncritical belief, albeit in the status quo.

<> Maintain that in investigations of unconventional phenomena, a single flaw invalidates the whole. In conventional contexts, however, you may sagely remind the world that, "after all, situations are complex and human beings are imperfect."

<> "Occam's Razor," or the "principle of parsimony," says the correct explanation of a mystery will usually involve the simplest fundamental principles. Insist, therefore, that the most familiar explanation is by definition the simplest! Imply strongly that Occam's Razor is not merely a philosophical rule of thumb but an immutable law.

<> Discourage any study of history that may reveal today's dogma as yesterday's heresy. Likewise, avoid discussing the many historical, philosophical and spiritual parallels between science and democracy.

<> Since the public tends to be unclear about the distinction between evidence and proof, do your best to help maintain this murkiness. If absolute proof is lacking, state categorically that "there is no evidence!"

In the field you will lose.



Crossbow To: Edge

Let me try to make this simple as possible.

If you can dowse gold,

Then go dowse some gold!
Definitly my plans I am going to mine next year in Gods country, my home.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Edge


...

Definitly my plans I am going to mine next year in Gods country, my home.

Good for You!

By the way, if you gold dowsing power is real, why are you not already rich?

If I could dowse gold, I would not care about JREF, Randi, skeptics, or any of the naysayers. I would just go out, find the gold, cash in, and live the life of Hugh Hefner until the day I die.

Best of luck to you in finding that gold!

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Edge
No body likes annoying idiots who constantly spam there veiws we know your veiws if you do not what to hear what mine are don't ask.
Well, Edge, you constantly spam your views here. Are we unjustified in asking you to prove them? My view is that dowsing does not work and those who believe this have shown it to be true time and time again in controlled tests, as you know from personal experience.

BTW. It is obvious you wrote the last bit because it is full of misspellings and grammatical errors. It is equally obvious that you did not write the next bits because they are as perfectly grammatical as they are perfectly dishonest. Remember, if you quote somebody, you're supposed to give the reference.

Plagerized by Edge
How skeptics think,
<> Portray science not as an open-ended process of discovery but as a holy war against unruly hordes of quackery- worshipping infidels. Since in war the ends justify the means, you may fudge, stretch or violate the scientific method, or even omit it entirely, in the name of defending the scientific method.
A flat out lie. Skeptics ask that claims be proven. You seem to think that science should be "whatever sounds right". And I challenge you to provide one example where skeptics tried to "fudge, stretch or violate" the scientific method. I can give you numerous examples where dowser do.


Plagerized by Edge
<> Keep your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible. This will "send the message" that accepted theory overrides any actual evidence that might challenge it--and that therefore no such evidence is worth examining.
Another lie. Here are ten cups with gold under one. Find it. You provide that evidence, and we will believe you. Your "stories" of how you have found gold are not evidence as any real scientist knows. All we ask is that you find the hidden gold. How abstract and theoretical is that? Not nearly as abstract and theoretical as claiming interference of electrical fields, aluminum, gold paint and the like. You can't even prove your power exists, yet you give excuses why it doesn't work.


Plagerized by Edge
<> Reinforce the popular misconception that certain subjects are inherently unscientific. In other words, deliberately confuse the *process* of science with the *content* of science. (Someone may, of course, object that since science is a universal approach to truth-seeking it must be neutral to subject matter; hence, only the investigative *process* can be scientifically responsible or irresponsible. If that happens, dismiss such objections using a method employed successfully by generations of politicians: simply reassure everyone that "there is no contradiction here!")
No subject starts out being "inherently unscientific". But if it fails test after test, then it is relegated to the scrap heap. This is how it should be. The rest of this paragraph is just gibberish.


Plagerized by Edge
<> Arrange to have your message echoed by persons of authority. The degree to which you can stretch the truth is directly proportional to the prestige of your mouthpiece.
LOL. That is such a laugh, when pseudoscience likes to get "celeberties" to endorse their useless products. What corresponding member of the scientific community carries such "prestige". I'll bet you can only name one well-know living scientist off the top of your head (Stephen Hawking) and I do not have any examples of where he has pooh-poohed pseudoscience. Do you?


Plagerized by Edge
<> Always refer to unorthodox statements as "claims," which are "touted," and to your own assertions as "facts," which are "stated."
And what else would you call unproven assertions? Facts? Well, you probably would. You have already shown that you will believe anything.

Plagerized by Edge
<> Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to say with impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such ridiculous claims!" (Note that this technique has withstood the test of time, and dates back at least to the age of Galileo. By simply refusing to look through his telescope, the ecclesiastical authorities bought the Church over three centuries' worth of denial free and clear!)
Look at yourself, Edge. The ecclesiastical authority is you! You are refusing to look at the evidence, but insist that since it doesn't fit your world view, then it must be wrong. It is people like you that impede the progress of science, not advance it.

Plagerized by Edge
<> If examining the evidence becomes unavoidable, report back that "there is nothing new here!" If confronted by a watertight body of evidence that has survived the most rigorous tests, simply dismiss it as being "too pat."
Whoever wrote this is a bald-faced liar. He is taking everything that pseudoscientists do and trying to imply that skeptics do it. How juvenile. BTW. Where is the "watertight body of evidence" that supports dowsing?

Plagerized by Edge

<> Equate the necessary skeptical component of science with *all* of science. Emphasize the narrow, stringent, rigorous and critical elements of science to the exclusion of intuition, inspiration, exploration and integration. If anyone objects, accuse them of viewing science in exclusively fuzzy, subjective or metaphysical terms.
Got a hot flash for you, genius. The skeptical componant is in fact essential to all science. If you went on intuition, we'd still think the earth was flat. So what this guy is saying is that science should abandon the scientific method and simply accept someones "intuition" or "inspiration".

Plagerized by Edge
<> Insist that the progress of science depends on explaining the unknown in terms of the known. In other words, science equals reductionism. You can apply the reductionist approach in any situation by discarding more and more and more evidence until what little is left can finally be explained entirely in terms of established knowledge.
Duh. The only way to explaing anything is in terms of the known. You can admit that you don't know, meaning you can't explain it, but to try to explain it with an unproven or unprovable fairy tale... well, that's why the Biblical Creation story came about.

Plagerized by Edge
<> Downplay the fact that free inquiry and legitimate disagreement are a normal part of science.
Absolute ********. Nobody disagrees among themselves more than scientists, and I can give you numerous examples. It is pseudoscientists that tend to accept anything another pseudoscientist says. How many dowsers have you known that you think are fakes?

Plagerized by Edge
<> Make yourself available to media producers who seek "balanced reporting" of unorthodox views. However, agree to participate in only those presentations whose time constraints and a-priori bias preclude such luxuries as discussion, debate and cross-examination.
ROTFL! The media LOVES pseudoscience. Why do you think the X-Files did so well. John Edward? Sylvia Browne. These media hogs get lots of attention, but ask one to appear on a panel where they have to debate their "skills" and you will see them running faster than a jackrabbit with it's tail on fire. Just like Edge is running from a fair test.

Plagerized by Edge
<> At every opportunity reinforce the notion that what is familiar is necessarily rational. The unfamiliar is therefore irrational, and consequently inadmissible as evidence.
Another great lie. Science has proven time and time again that the world is not as we perceive it. Irrational evidence is perfectly admissible provided it is evidence and not anecdotes.

Plagerized by Edge
<> State categorically that the unconventional may be dismissed as, at best, an honest misinterpretation of the conventional.
Absolute balderdash. Skeptics don't dismiss anything unconventional. We test it. Lying paranormalists refuse to be tested. Here's an example. My wife said that if you put a spoon in the neck of an opened bottle of champagne, it will retain it's fizz. I said that didn't sound logical, but I would test. We opened two bottles of identical champagne and put a spoon in on of the bottles. After several hours, we had a friend serve her tastes at random from each bottle and ask her which bottle it came from. She was right 4 times out of ten. (we couldn't do a longer test or I would have had to pour her into bed ;))

Plagerized by Edge
<> Characterize your opponents as "uncritical believers." Summarily dismiss the notion that debunkery itself betrays uncritical belief, albeit in the status quo.
What is it about debunking that you observe is uncritical belief? Please be specific.

Plagerized by Edge
<> Maintain that in investigations of unconventional phenomena, a single flaw invalidates the whole. In conventional contexts, however, you may sagely remind the world that, "after all, situations are complex and human beings are imperfect."
So now you are saying that scientists should not look for flaws in experimental design? Besides, what we really ask is that "unconventional phenomena" experiments be repeatable by independant investigators. Why do you have a problem with this?


Plagerized by Edge
<> "Occam's Razor," or the "principle of parsimony," says the correct explanation of a mystery will usually involve the simplest fundamental principles. Insist, therefore, that the most familiar explanation is by definition the simplest! Imply strongly that Occam's Razor is not merely a philosophical rule of thumb but an immutable law.
Another egregious lie. Scientists use Occam's Razor as a guideline to see what would be the most likely courses to investigate. If that turns up a dead end, then we go to more unlikely scenarios and test those. No scientist says OR is an immutable law. Whoever made this assertion betrays their incredible stupidity about science.


Plagerized by Edge
<> Discourage any study of history that may reveal today's dogma as yesterday's heresy. Likewise, avoid discussing the many historical, philosophical and spiritual parallels between science and democracy.
Science doesn't discourage history or philosophy at all. It is simply not a part of science. Go and make your comparisons and philosophize to your heart's content, but if you make a scientific claim, then these diciplines have no place.


Plagerized by Edge
<> Since the public tends to be unclear about the distinction between evidence and proof, do your best to help maintain this murkiness. If absolute proof is lacking, state categorically that "there is no evidence!"
In it's purest form, science does not even accept the concept of "proof". A theory is either strongly supported by evidence or weakly supported. Only things like mathmatics have real "proof". But if there is no evidence, then that should be noted, right?


Written by Edge (contains misspellings)
Definitly my plans I am going to mine next year in Gods country, my home.

This is something that has always confused me. Since theists claim God made everything, isn't it all God's country. Which parts has he sold off?
And I predict you will be no more wealthy after mining than you are now. Possibly less. If dowsing worked, you'd be rich.

[roger]

Originally posted by Tricky
BTW. It is obvious you wrote the last bit because it is full of misspellings and grammatical errors. It is equally obvious that you did not write the next bits because they are as perfectly grammatical as they are perfectly dishonest. Remember, if you quote somebody, you're supposed to give the reference.

Source of Edge's post: http://members.aol.com/ddrasin/zen.html

It's quoted many places on the web, according to a quick google search, so he may have used a different link. Nonetheless, the text is copyrighted by the author, and he explicitly states "May not be reproduced in any form without express permission from the author".

Good catch, Tricky!

Roger

[Crossbow]

:)

Thanks Tricky!

:)

I was wondering who wrote that bit for him since I was sure it was not him due to the lack of spelling and grammer errors.

Originially, I had thought a friend of his had ghost-wrote for him, but it turns out he just copied it from someone else and did not give them credit.

My oh My! What a wanker he is!

He cannot dowse and he cannot give credit where credit is due.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by roger


Source of Edge's post: http://members.aol.com/ddrasin/zen.html

It's quoted many places on the web, according to a quick google search, so he may have used a different link. Nonetheless, the text is copyrighted by the author, and he explicitly states "May not be reproduced in any form without express permission from the author".

Good catch, Tricky!

Roger
So will this post of Edge's now be censored?

btw, that whole article was one huge straw man, with a bit of false analogy thrown in. A lot of the actions quoted are actually those adopted by believers, not skeptics. Eg: "Since the public tends to be unclear about the distinction between evidence and proof, do your best to help maintain this murkiness."

And, for good measure, Occam's Razor is misquoted. Occam's Razor does not say that anything is the correct explanation. It simply says you do not need to invent ad hoc hypotheses to explain something that has already been explained using natural explanations.


(Edited to add quote)

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Crossbow
:)

Thanks Tricky!

:)

I was wondering who wrote that bit for him since I was sure it was not him due to the lack of spelling and grammer errors.

Originially, I had thought a friend of his had ghost-wrote for him, but it turns out he just copied it from someone else and did not give them credit.

My oh My! What a wanker he is!

He cannot dowse and he cannot give credit where credit is due.
Perhaps he dowsed the article. :D

[Edge]

You guys are such crybabies.
I posted those before and it's not plagiarism and I have permission to use it whenever I want; however I want.
Why would you care if I posted the link any way?
What the f*** are you worried about richard, Tricky ?
Oh oh my question mark better check it out, R.O.F.L.M.A.O
So you are the liar.

It is the way most skeptics behave.
I say lets use all the scientific controls we can in the field there are several ways to check with almost no false positive readings.
I'm not going over this again.

If I go to the skeptic’s camp again it will be under my terms totally, with my spots to test in preferably in the great outdoors in a neutral spot if James is still available.

Don't worry about my spelling, if you can't discredit the evidence discredit the witness, eh wart. Don't forget to spam again.

If you took the time to examine what the dowsing stick does you would know that it is not muscle action. There is an arc or a curve in the stick when the strongest of you muscles can’t stop it from continuing.
The reason why, is the torque that's developed when you try to stop it.
There is no way in the world that tiny muscles could do that and it needs to be looked at more scientifically than what happens at Jref I was expecting a clean room at the very least.

As far as what I'm worth finically that's not your business,
But I will say it's in the six figure numbers and I hope to hit another sixty-ounce pocket when I go back, do the math you yoyos.

Maybe I’ll hit more but there are a lot of days that are less, but they are just as fun.
But I always hit every time that I dowse and it can also be proven that when you do not dowse your chances at it are a lot less maybe one spot out of thirty, but they are just as fun if you don’t like to make money Du hu.

In the field Jref will lose.
Let me get you there, I’ll take your million too. A false positive reading in an office doesn’t mean a thing to me when in the field there might be one or two incidences in a season. Especially when I hit color every time I use it and when I don’t it’s like mining blind.

You guys don’t know **** about mining.

I say lets do it under more scientific controls or in the field where it is used, it’s not used in Florida and there are false positive readings every where I go, it’s not to say there isn’t something to it but lets consider what’s under the ground here that can never be proved, where’s the bedrock how deep?

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Edge

If you took the time to examine what the dowsing stick does you would know that it is not muscle action. There is an arc or a curve in the stick when the strongest of you muscles can’t stop it from continuing.
The reason why, is the torque that's developed when you try to stop it.
There is no way in the world that tiny muscles could do that and it needs to be looked at more scientifically than what happens at Jref I was expecting a clean room at the very least.


Because of the tension in the dowsing stick, your involuntary movements and your pulse cause movements in the stick. You have no control over this because your nerves and muscles act before you become aware of the motion. The dowsing stick merely amplifies your involuntary movements. If you really can dowse, you shouldn't need a stick at all.

A clean room? Please define. Clean of what? If there was a problem with the room you should have objected at that time. At this point it seems you're just making excuses. Others have explained that to you, and I'm sure you wouldn't accept similar excuses from us.


In the field Jref will lose.
Let me get you there, I’ll take your million too. A false positive reading in an office doesn’t mean a thing to me when in the field there might be one or two incidences in a season. Especially when I hit color every time I use it and when I don’t it’s like mining blind.

You guys don’t know **** about mining.


Assuming you don't "salt" the field location first...tell you what, you can use my back yard. Half-acre of flat, heavy soil, high clay content, some rocks. There's a car buried back there. Bring your stick and find it. You'll have to tune for "Chevy".

True. I don't know jack about mining, but I don't have to know about mining to know that dowsing is ********. Mining blind? Would that be random digging (the term "digging" is intended to include picking, blasting, scooping, shoveling, ramming, rodding, chopping, chiseling, splitting, gouging, core sampling, etc.)?


I say lets do it under more scientific controls or in the field where it is used, it’s not used in Florida and there are false positive readings every where I go, it’s not to say there isn’t something to it but lets consider what’s under the ground here that can never be proved, where’s the bedrock how deep?

What's bedrock have to do with it? Never be proved? Any state geological survey office would have that information. All you have to do is to drill and measure. If you've seen enough of the countryside roadcuts you can probably make a reasonable guess as to bedrock depth.

[Edge]

I never object to the past but learn from it.
Now for the future, I can make that better at least for myself can't I?
I'm not the one squirming I have nothing to lose and every thing to gain.

Until you try, you won’t know the truth.

Try it, learn it, then come back and tell us what you think.
No one has even attempted it here yet why is that?
So thoroughly convinced are you, swim against the current, and beliefs.

[Edge]

Salt the creek why?
I'll leave the same time the Jref crew leaves and they can even keep an eye on me.
Why in the world would I try to perpetuate a false hood if I had to salt the creek? I would fail and what’s the point.
You do the same thing when you run a test in an office, you salt the ground and besides a geologist would be able to tell untouched or virgin ground.
Even if when we got there if some one else worked the ground in spots that would be a good test to see if they got it all.

But there still is ground in the area that has not been touched or tampered with, that could be checked.
In the field I’ll win…..I have when ever I mine.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Edge
You guys are such crybabies.
I posted those before and it's not plagiarism and I have permission to use it whenever I want; however I want.
Why would you care if I posted the link any way?
What the f*** are you worried about richard, Tricky ?
I'm not worried about anything. You, on the other hand, seem very defensive for some reason.

[The Fool]

Edge...
So, "in the field" could you find nuggets under coffee cups? If not, what is the properties of a coffee cup that cancel your "powers"? could you find which of 10 coffee cups has a 1oz nugget under it?

I'll tell you this....If you watched where it was put your dowsing thingimajig would detect it every time.....remember, you are like all dowsers and cannot resist showing off in the open test. Then when the test was done without you seeing where the nugget goes, suddenly, your powers would vanish.

Failing the Jreff challenge was probably not much fun. But at least you tried...... you really don't expect people to follow you 500 miles into the wilderness to see you fail again?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Edge
You guys are such crybabies.
I posted those before and it's not plagiarism and I have permission to use it whenever I want; however I want.
Why would you care if I posted the link any way?
What the f*** are you worried about richard, Tricky ?

Perhaps you do have permission, Edge, although like everything else you claim, you expect us to take you at your word, and you are a proven liar. I am not worried at all, I just point out to others how intellectually dishonest you are to post things without attribution. When you make no comment otherwise, you are saying "I wrote this". Of course, no one believed that, but it is still dishonest of you.


Oh oh my question mark better check it out, R.O.F.L.M.A.O
So you are the liar.
I'll need a specialist in primative languages to figure out that first sentence. But I object to being called a liar. I challenge you to find a single instance where I have lied. I can find several for you, a couple being:

In Randi's office, you agreed the the conditions were acceptible, now you say they were not. You were lying then or you are lying now.

You have admitted that you used your knowledge of where the gold was to pass the "open" test, rather than your dowsing skills. You lied when you said otherwise.

Okay, Pinnochio. Let's hear where I have lied.


It is the way most skeptics behave.
I say lets use all the scientific controls we can in the field there are several ways to check with almost no false positive readings.
I'm not going over this again.
Again? I don't recall you ever giving a detailed description of your test. What I have noticed is that you consistantly refuse to comment on my suggestion:

1) Find a place where you agree there is no gold
2) Repeat the office test.

I would love to hear you explain what you find unscientific about that, but I predict you will ignore it in your usual cowardly fashion.


If I go to the skeptic’s camp again it will be under my terms totally, with my spots to test in preferably in the great outdoors in a neutral spot if James is still available.
You really need to do something about your black-outs, Edge. Surely you remember that the rules have to be agreed upon by both parties. You haven't ever give a clear description of what exactly you plan to do. I suspect you can't.


Don't worry about my spelling, if you can't discredit the evidence discredit the witness, eh wart. Don't forget to spam again.
I was merely noting that your writing style is so... uh... distinctive, that your attempt to pass someone else's writing off as your own was pitiful. Are you sure you want to be an author? BTW. What evidence?


If you took the time to examine what the dowsing stick does you would know that it is not muscle action. There is an arc or a curve in the stick when the strongest of you muscles can’t stop it from continuing.
The reason why, is the torque that's developed when you try to stop it.
Odd, because you described one episode where you dowsed with a fellow who balances the rod on his hands. A force that strong should have pulled the dowsing rod right out of his hands and impaled it in the ground. I ask again. Do you know any dowsers that you think are fakes?

There is no way in the world that tiny muscles could do that and it needs to be looked at more scientifically than what happens at Jref I was expecting a clean room at the very least.

Then why didn't you say something? Oh, that's right. You did. You had him move an aluminum cup. Your lies are getting more desperate, Edge.


As far as what I'm worth finically that's not your business,
But I will say it's in the six figure numbers and I hope to hit another sixty-ounce pocket when I go back, do the math you yoyos.
Six figures is squat, Edge. That's two or three years salary for the average American. Your home is probably worth that much. Yeah, we know what you hope to hit, but funny that big payday always seems just over the horizon.


Maybe I’ll hit more but there are a lot of days that are less, but they are just as fun.
But I always hit every time that I dowse and it can also be proven that when you do not dowse your chances at it are a lot less maybe one spot out of thirty, but they are just as fun if you don’t like to make money Du hu.
Then tell me why big mining companies don't use dowsers. They could save a fortune in geologists' salaries. But as long as you recognize that you are only doing it for fun, then it's okay. Don't be like the person who says "I only play for fun," then blows his rent money on lottery tickets.


In the field Jref will lose.
Let me get you there, I’ll take your million too. A false positive reading in an office doesn’t mean a thing to me when in the field there might be one or two incidences in a season. Especially when I hit color every time I use it and when I don’t it’s like mining blind.
Time and time again you claim that JREF will lose in the field, but you are too cowardly to take a fair test. State your experimental design, or admit that you don't have one.


You guys don’t know **** about mining.
LOL. You may have been around "gold miners" and learned some of their methods, but you have proven many times that you don't know a thing about geology. You probably think the three kinds of rocks are ingenious, metaphoric and sedentary. Mining companies hire geologists, not dowsers. Can you possibly conceive why?


I say lets do it under more scientific controls or in the field where it is used, it’s not used in Florida and there are false positive readings every where I go, it’s not to say there isn’t something to it but lets consider what’s under the ground here that can never be proved, where’s the bedrock how deep?
What could be more scientific? Find a place with no false readings and then let someone hide some gold. Science doesn't have to be difficult, Edge. Perhaps you would discover that if you ever studied it.

Oh yeah. You never answered this question. What is the range of your dowsing ability? If you can really pick up readings hundreds of feet deep, then the only way to "prove" you were correct in the field would be to excavate hundreds of feet below where you "dowsed" the gold was gone. Do you see why your "test" is unworkable?

[CWL]

Dowsers... gotta love 'em... NOT. :mad:

For those of you that have missed it here's another little thread (http://66.192.47.137/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=8307) on the subject.

[Crossbow]

I think I have finally figured out why Edge would want the test to be done in an outdoor enviroment.

First, it would allow him, or an aide, to salt the area well in advance, then Edge could come in find the some, or all, of the planted gold and claim sucess. Further, since it is an undefined area, there would be no way to determine how much gold actually was there, therefore all that he would have to do is find a few pieces to claim sucess.

Second, even if he did not find any gold, he could just claim that it was buried further than could be recovered. Hence, there would be no way to validate his claims.

By the way, one of the things I have noted about dowsers, is that there power only works when they are directly above the target and that they are unable to triangulate the location of the target. I would think that if the power was real, they would be able to do so.

As for my opinion, I think that Edge is at best dishonest, greedy, and self-deluded.

[wert]

Originally posted by Edge
You guys are such crybabies.
I posted those before and it's not plagiarism and I have permission to use it whenever I want; however I want.
Why would you care if I posted the link any way?
What the f*** are you worried about richard, Tricky ?
Oh oh my question mark better check it out, R.O.F.L.M.A.O
So you are the liar.Hey, this is cute.

You call others a "liar" but we're expected to put up with you you lying and evading honest questions about your abject failure to prove your abilities under fair test conditions accepted 100% by yourself.

And of course anyone can go right here and see the full extent of your failure and the start of your continuing lame excuses.

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html


It is the way most skeptics behave.
I say lets use all the scientific controls we can in the field there are several ways to check with almost no false positive readings.
I'm not going over this again.And once again I'll tell you.

All your blathering about "self tests" where you would "unilaterally" set up the test conditions means absolutely nothing to us.

Take a fair re-test approved by Randi and JREF and we'll give you credibility. Until then, why bother making excuses?

If I go to the skeptic’s camp again it will be under my terms totally, Hey genius. You agreed with the terms in the first test. You helped set them up with Randi. Randi won't even perfrom the prelim test unless the claimant agrees to the test conditions. You agreed to the test conditions and now are trying to wriggle out and imply that somehow the test conditions *which you 100% agreed to * were someone unfair.

if James is still available.Once again, it's not required for Randi personally to test you again. It's just another excuse you've been using to escape another public failure. JREF has operatives all over the U.S. and I'm sure JREF would be flexible on this. Randi nearly bent over backward to give you a fair test before and all we ended up with from you were lame excuses and ad-hominen attacks on Randi being "old and forgetful".

Bleh.

Don't worry about my spelling, if you can't discredit the evidence discredit the witness, eh wart. Discredit you? Don't have to.

You discredited yourself right here. http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html



There is no way in the world that tiny muscles could do that and it needs to be looked at more scientifically than what happens at Jref I was expecting a clean room at the very least. Hey, let's see you prove it in a fair second test with JREF eh?

As far as what I'm worth finically that's not your business,
But I will say it's in the six figure numbers and I hope to hit another sixty-ounce pocket when I go back, do the math you yoyos.Proof? If you're so wealthy, why did you bitch about the "long trip" to take the JREF test? A fella with that kind of bling could easily afford a plane trip wouldn't you think?


Maybe I’ll hit more but there are a lot of days that are less, but they are just as fun.Hey, fun or not, how about acctually demonstrating some of that dowsing "talent" in a fair JREF test?


But I always hit every time that I dowse and it can also be proven that when you do not dowse your chances at it are a lot less maybe one spot out of thirty, Sure, you're always successful except under fair test conditions that you helped to set up yourself and agreed to 100%


In the field Jref will lose.Sure.

Why not take tricky's advice and dowse a field to make sure it's bereft of gold. Then follow the exact procedure you followed in the first test with a member of JREF there to keep you honest.

Let me get you there, I’ll take your million too. A false positive reading in an office doesn’t mean a thing to me when in the field there might be one or two incidences in a season. Once again conveniently forgetting the fact that you scored 100% in the "open" JREF test, and then turned around and score 1 out of ten in the real test.

I say lets do it under more scientific controls or in the field where it is used, it’s not used in Florida and there are false positive readings every where I go, it’s I'm pretty darn sure Randi and JREF would be willing to let you do the test in another state. Why not ask them? Otherwise, by saying you can't dowse in an office or in the whole state of florida(!) shows that you're becoming even more desparate for excuses to avoid a fair re-test by JREF.
:rolleyes:

[Edge]

How stupid!
Any one that knows any thing about mining in the creek would be able to tell if the gold which lies on the bottom was originally there instead of on the top were it would be if salted. Why would I throw what I mined back?

You will lose in the field, if you’re so sure why are you worried?
I could default the million one day and the next let them pick the spot on the creek with several chooses of where to go, hell I wouldn't even take any gold with me except what I use in the stick.
Like I said there is still virgin ground to go to, no problem there.

Okay, Pinnochio. Let's hear where I have lied.
Talk about spelling errors!
Learn how to spell Pinocchio.

Ok here's one place of many, I’m sure people can see this just e-mail the guy and ask if I didn’t get permission.

Plagerized by Edge
¨ Keep your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible. This will "send the message" that accepted theory overrides any actual evidence that might challenge it--and that therefore no such evidence is worth examining.

Oh let me give you his address,

¨ Plagiarized, the kettle calling the pot black! Another miss spelling.

Copy of the letter sent to Dan,

>Hi Daniel, May I have permission to use a couple of your paragraphs to fight the professional debunkers? It's a skeptic’s forum and they are blind.
What you have here is very good and it will make them angry and maybe think a little.
What you got here is good answers to their bull.

Mike
ddrasin@aol.com<

You are the liar ass wipe.

I have no reason to lie why would I?

He has you figured out as to the reason you are the way you are? Could be many.

Time and time again you claim that JREF will lose in the field, but you are too cowardly to take a fair test. State your experimental design, or admit that you don't have one.

They will lose in the field it might be in Florida or California, But it's defiant win win situation in California that would be my choice were gold is mined and my home..

You really need to do something about your black-outs, Edge. Surely you remember that the rules have to be agreed upon by both parties. You haven't ever give a clear description of what exactly you plan to do. I suspect you can't.

It’s given not give!

Another lie, I have gone over this many times its self-explanatory jess.
Any body with half a brain can figure out how to do the tests in the field that is up to them like I said I only want to prove that dowsing isn't what you think it is and I will forfeit the money if I'm in the field mining any way, but the second day will be different that should do, god almighty how much more do you want?

Jref can set up the parameters to the test any way they want out there, and don't tell me they can't go to the gold fields how ridicules is that? Who’s the idiot that said that?

Tricky said, quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Edge
You guys are such crybabies.
I posted those before and it's not plagiarism and I have permission to use it whenever I want; however I want.
Why would you care if I posted the link any way?
What the f*** are you worried about richard, Tricky ?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Perhaps you do have permission, Edge, although like everything else you claim, you expect us to take you at your word, and you are a proven liar. I am not worried at all, I just point out to others how intellectually dishonest you are to post things without attribution. When you make no comment otherwise, you are saying "I wrote this". Of course, no one believed that, but it is still dishonest of you.

You guys seem to know where it came from.


quote: What i said,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh oh my question mark better check it out, R.O.F.L.M.A.O
So you are the liar.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And here you try to make fun of my sentence, again discredit the witness approach!

I'll need a specialist in primative languages to figure out that first sentence. But I object to being called a liar. I challenge you to find a single instance where I have lied. I can find several for you, a couple being:

In Randi's office, you agreed the the conditions were acceptible, now you say they were not. You were lying then or you are lying now.

"No, but common sense would indicate a different place that's all.
Why lose again?"

You have admitted that you used your knowledge of where the gold was to pass the "open" test, rather than your dowsing skills. You lied when you said otherwise.

Okay, Pinnochio. Let's hear where I have lied.

Many miss spellings in that quote.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is the way most skeptics behave.
I say lets use all the scientific controls we can in the field there are several ways to check with almost no false positive readings.
I'm not going over this again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Again? I don't recall you ever giving a detailed description of your test. What I have noticed is that you consistantly refuse to comment on my suggestion:

" Back up and read and remember."

1) Find a place where you agree there is no gold
2) Repeat the office test.

I would love to hear you explain what you find unscientific about that, but I predict you will ignore it in your usual cowardly fashion.



There's plenty of places in the gold fields were there is no gold and there's plenty of places that there is, take your choice, again there are more than two ways of testing at least three or four till your sure. Then you’ll lose that million, and make sure I'm not cheating ok if I do cheat I'm sure there will be a big write up about that, I’m sure of it.

There are boulders and over- burden to take the place of cups but we could try that too, all I'm saying if you really want to know the truth about it play on the creek with me and I'll show you.
Make sure that when you come out there that your very existence depends on the gold you pull up out of the ground, dredge next to me and see if you can support your self that will make a believer out of you when you can't run or eat you will then asked to be shown what I know, we could do a write up of a miner that doesn't know how to dowse that would be funny.

For the idiot that said why follow me into the field, James and the foundation are rich it would be easy to do, there are many creeks to check small amounts of gold and large amounts of gold what ever happens to be there. I have no control over what’s there but I can tell most of the time how much and size of the pieces.

It's located and recovered and then it's gone. If I can't get to it then no one can. At that point it could be assumed to be irretrievable and that spot is dead to them and myself. Common sense, is common sense, how easy can it be?


Oh by the way I only know one dowser other than my self, the guy that taught me.

Learn how to dowse then talk to me on here; any of you can do it, its so easy, not.
One of you skeptics should be able to do it, and then report back and I’ll give you more Ideas on how to stop the reaction.

Any body want instructions on how to do it?
You could actually help me Heehee.

[wert]

Originally posted by The Fool
Edge...
So, "in the field" could you find nuggets under coffee cups? If not, what is the properties of a coffee cup that cancel your "powers"? could you find which of 10 coffee cups has a 1oz nugget under it?

I'll tell you this....If you watched where it was put your dowsing thingimajig would detect it every time.....remember, you are like all dowsers and cannot resist showing off in the open test. Then when the test was done without you seeing where the nugget goes, suddenly, your powers would vanish.
Oh absolutely. Edge tends to conveninently forget facts like the following from his JREF test.

The performer has the opportunity of deciding for himself — in the "open" tests — whether it's his powers, or just his foreknowledge of the answer, that is actually at work. Mike was convinced of the former.

Point this out to him and he'll either ignore it or give you some lame excuse like "well Randi is old and forgetful" "Randi is misquoting me" :rolleyes:

[wert]

Originally posted by Edge


You are the liar ass wipe.Hey edge. Just a little FYI.

Even if you have permission to reproduce the text of a copyrighted article you still have to properly attribute its source.

Doing anything else implies that you wrote it. And that is simply wrong.

Luckily for us, it's pretty easy to tell when you have nothing to say and are merely posting "cut 'n paste" nonsense from the sites of others.

I have no reason to lie why would I?Um, you lied about whether you believed the initial test to be fair or not.

Your credibility is nonexistant.

They will lose in the field it might be in Florida or California, But it's defiant win win situation in California that would be my choice were gold is mined and my home..Sure, repeat this enough and maybe it'll be true eh?

I know that JREF has people in California. Why not have Randi and JREF set you up again in a fair test?

Trying to move the test to places you think are inaccessible to JREF is a simple minded and very obvious ploy to avoid the test.


Another lie, I have gone over this many times its self-explanatory jess.
Any body with half a brain can figure out how to do the tests in the field that is up to them like I said I only want to prove that dowsing isn't what you think it is ....So, you were only using half your brain when you 100% agreed to all the test conditions in your first test with Randi and the JREF?
And here you try to make fun of my sentence, again discredit the witness approach!Hey look! It's edge trying to garner sympathy by prenending to be a victim! :)

Many miss spellings in that quote.[quote]Ah, changing the topic I see.

[quote] Then you’ll lose that million, and make sure I'm not cheating ok if I do cheat I'm sure there will be a big write up about that, I’m sure of it.Nothing less than a fair re-test setup with JREF and agreed to by both parties will be acceptable proof for us. And of course you'll make sure no such test ever occurs by finding excuses to disagree with the test terms or local.

We see right through you edge.

There are boulders and over- burden to take the place of cups but we could try that too,Yeah, we know it would be impossible to do something simple like put the gold in soft bags or perhaps stick the mugs to the "boulders" with putty or something. More potential excuses here.

For the idiot that said why follow me into the field, James and the foundation are richWhat makes you think Randi is "rich". He can't touch the million and he lives mainly by speaking engagements. The finances almost cause this board to cease existance and money is being raised to keep it that way. If the JREF and Randi were "rich" such fundraising would be unnecessary.

but I can tell most of the time how much and size of the pieces.Except under fair test conditions that you help set up and agree to 100%.

Oh by the way I only know one dowser other than my self, the guy that taught me. And as I asked you before, why doesn't he take the JREF challenge? I'm guessing he knows he'll fail and doesn't want the kind of public humiliation you've brought upon yourself.

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

Learn how to dowse then talk to me on here; any of you can do it, its so easy, not.What crap. Just prove you can dowse in a fair re-test with JREF.

One of you skeptics should be able to do it, and then report back and I’ll give you more Ideas on how to stop the reaction.You make the fallacious assumption that skeptics haven't tried it.

Besides such a lame excuse is not relevant as to wheter you can truly demonstrate the skill you claim to have.

We have lots of evidence that you can't sucessfully dowse and absolutely no evidence that you can. :rolleyes:

[Edge]

Wart your an idiot too,Hey genius. You agreed with the terms in the first test. You helped set them up with Randi. Randi won't even perfrom the prelim test unless the claimant agrees to the test conditions. You agreed to the test conditions and now are trying to wriggle out and imply that somehow the test conditions *which you 100% agreed to * were someone unfair.

Learn how to spell perform. You see no one is perfect, there was only one that was perfect and we know who he was!

You expect me to lose again with the same test how stupid.
That was in the past now for the future, if he did not agree to the next set then he's one sided and knows more about dowsing than he lets on.

All your blathering about "self tests" where you would "unilaterally" set up the test conditions means absolutely nothing to us.

That's not what I said, I said in the field they can set it up as I mine how easy can it be? Then if they want more control they can in an agreed spot do the cup test too.

Once again, it's not required for Randi personally to test you again. It's just another excuse you've been using to escape another public failure. JREF has operatives all over the U.S. and I'm sure JREF would be flexible on this. Randi nearly bent over backward to give you a fair test before and all we ended up with from you were lame excuses and ad-hominen attacks on Randi being "old and forgetful".

Then maybe I should get some one else to do the tests and expose you all.
And he is forgetful I do not carry crystals around in my pocket for any reason. Look it was a long and grueling day.

Take a fair re-test approved by Randi and JREF and we'll give you credibility. Until then, why bother making excuses?

What's fair is not taking the same exact test in an office and , I'M TRYING TO SHOW YOU HOW TO DO THAT BUT INSEAD YOU THINK I WOULD SALT THE CREEK HOW ABSRUD AND CLAIMING THAT I WOULD CHEAT,YOU GUYS SUCK.

Wart your so full of bull **** it isn't funny at all you are the worst of the worst.
There you go again spamming,You discredited yourself right here. http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

Hey thanks for making me famous, maybe I'll get a role to play in a film about how skeptics are ranting and raving all the time to be heard.

Why not take tricky's advice and dowse a field to make sure it's bereft of gold. Then follow the exact procedure you followed in the first test with a member of JREF there to keep you honest.

That's common sense isn't it since I could not over come false positive readings in the office, there was no problem till my twenty second try, Du hu

Once again conveniently forgetting the fact that you scored 100% in the "open" JREF test, and then turned around and score 1 out of ten in the real test.

I haven't forgot anything.

I'm pretty darn sure Randi and JREF would be willing to let you do the test in another state. Why not ask them? Otherwise, by saying you can't dowse in an office or in the whole state of florida(!) shows that you're becoming even more desparate for excuses to avoid a fair re-test by JREF.

More miss spelling

So what's your point? I'm sure of it too spam head.


The performer has the opportunity of deciding for himself — in the "open" tests — whether it's his powers, or just his foreknowledge of the answer, that is actually at work. Mike was convinced of the former.


No I was convinced of both and wasn't worried about it till the first miss then it was too late to worry about that.
That doesn’t mean any thing now does it?

Come on learn to dowse wart I'll tech you, what you worried that you might switch sides here?

[wert]

Originally posted by Edge
Wart your an idiot too,

Learn how to spell perform. Once again, harping on spelling the the refuge of someone who has no answers. :)

You see no one is perfect, there was only one that was perfect and we know who he was!Dilbert?


You expect me to lose again with the same test how stupid.Nope, I expect you to take take a fair re-test and agree on terms agreeable to yourself and JREF.

You know, like you did the first time you failed miserably. :)

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html


That was in the past now for the future, if he did not agree to the next set then he's one sided and knows more about dowsing than he lets on.In other words, you're trying to disavow that the first test was fair? Or do we hear more lies and evasions about it?

Calling Randi "old, forgetful, one sided" is just a totally transparent and lame way of trying to discredit he and the the fairness of the first test.

It's obvious to anyone reading your posts edge.



That's not what I said, I said in the field they can set it up as I mine how easy can it be? Then if they want more control they can in an agreed spot do the cup test too.Cool, So that means you're agreeing to Tricky's test procedure?

And you're agreeing to do it under JREF supervision and with their agreement as to the test conditions?

Then maybe I should get some one else to do the tests and expose you all.Hey how convenient for you. Maybe you can find someone out their who will let you keep your self delusion intact?

And he is forgetful I do not carry crystals around in my pocket for any reason. Look it was a long and grueling day. Ah, and how is this relevant to the actual test you took? You agreed to the terms, and then randi proceeded to do his utmost best to make the test fair for you.

But you insist on lame excuses, so go figure.


What's fair is not taking the same exact test in an office and , I'M TRYING TO SHOW YOU HOW TO DO THAT BUT INSEAD YOU THINK I WOULD SALT THE CREEK HOW ABSRUD AND CLAIMING THAT I WOULD CHEAT,YOU GUYS SUCK.You misunderstand as usual. Most of us would be quite happy for you to take the original test *with the same cups and targets* in a field that you have dowsed and claim to be "gold-free"


Wart your so full of bull **** it isn't funny at all you are the worst of the worst.
There you go again spamming, Ah... I'm just guessing you don't like your shortcomings so easily exposed. I'm not going anywhere edge. I work in computers and have access all day long...

Hey thanks for making me famous.... Hm? And you welcome fame as a failure, a self delusional person with nothing but a bag full of excuse? :)

That's common sense isn't it since I could not over come false positive readings in the office, there was no problem till my twenty second try, Du hu Look genius. You agreed to the test and could have adjusted it or dropped out at any time.

You chose not to and failed miserably in a test that you helped set up and that you approved 100%.

Don't give us lame crap like "well, I was there so I had to try" or "those mysterious waves from the copier beyond the wall sabotaged me".

So what's your point? I'm sure of it too spam head.My point is that you've been simply making a lot of excuses about the timing and place of the re-test in a really obvious ploy to avoid the test.


The performer has the opportunity of deciding for himself — in the "open" tests — whether it's his powers, or just his foreknowledge of the answer, that is actually at work. Mike was convinced of the former.

No I was convinced of both and wasn't worried about it till the first miss then it was too late to worry about that.
That doesn’t mean any thing now does it?It means you can only find the targets when you can physically see them. Also helps to prove that you can't dowse under fair test conditions that you've even approved of yourself.

We're expected to believe that your "powers" were working the open tests and then "poof"! suddenly they vanished?
:rolleyes:

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

[Edge]

There you go again.
Trying to move the test to places you think are inaccessible to JREF is a simple minded and very obvious ploy to avoid the test.

The place is not inaccessible another lie.Your credibility is nonexistant
Another miss spelled word nonexistent.

Man I'm worried now!

Your quote of my quote,Many miss spellings in that quote.[quote]Ah, changing the topic I see.

Changing the topic is exactly what you all are good at.
I was pointing out that even you are not perfect the real topic of that discussion.

Sure, repeat this enough and maybe it'll be true eh?
Oh it will be true of that I'm sure as I spent lots of time up there checking myself because every body’s a skeptic till it's proven to ones self.

We see right through you edge.

What do you really see?

What I see is some one grasping for straws,

Yeah, we know it would be impossible to do something simple like put the gold in soft bags or perhaps stick the mugs to the "boulders" with putty or something. More potential excuses here.
Fragmented sentence.

The man has written several good books he can afford it, what are you blind too.

More **** from wart,
Except under fair test conditions that you help set up and agree to 100%.

Oh by the way I only know one dowser other than my self, the guy that taught me.
And as I asked you before, why doesn't he take the JREF challenge? I'm guessing he knows he'll fail and doesn't want the kind of public humiliation you've brought upon yourself.

No He's about as old as James and a self made millionaire with many mining claims that produce anything from silver to gold in many states, with many claims and heavy equipment why would he care?
His proof is in his bank!

You make the fallacious assumption that skeptics haven't tried it.

Well have you? do you know how? If you know how then we'll take it to the next step.

[Flatworm]

Edge, you've never explained to me how we can separate the knowledge you gain from dowsing from the knowledge you gain from mining the site.

You have yet to suggest any kind of workable scientific controls for your proposed test. You have not solved the problem of determining a baseline probability of success for comparison purposes. You have not provided a means of determining whether the area has been salted besides your word. I'm sorry, but I've caught you in a lie before, and that's just not good enough.

Why not agree to Tricky's protocol? You simply certify that an area of ground is free of gold and disruptive influences, and then you try to determine under which bucket a gold target has been placed.

[Crossbow]

'Edge' is starting to remind me of 'Lyndale Queensbury' aka 'I Can Take Pictures Of Demons'.

Both refuse to test under JREF terms, dodges questions with angry responses, and by quoting the Bible.

I for one do not think that your dowsing powers will ever replace the geologists that mining companies hire to help them find gold.

[wert]

Originally posted by Edge
There you go again.Hey! A Ronald Reagan quote! No surprise that you didn't attribute it! :)



Another miss spelled word nonexistent.Hey, remember that bible verse about "he who would cast the first stone"?

Anways, we can see that harping on spelling is your way of changing the subject.

Oh it will be true of that I'm sure as I spent lots of time up there checking myself because every body’s a skeptic till it's proven to ones self.Absolutely irrelevant.

You're trying to claim that anyone who isn't a dowser *or believer in dowsing" can fairly test you.

Nonsense. Another excuse heard and disregarded.


Fragmented sentence.More changing the subject.

The man has written several good books he can afford it, what are you blind too.Titles? Proof?

And once again, since you claim to be fairly well financially, why the complaining about the long trip to florida to see Randi for the test? You didn't drive did you? I would think a well off gentleman such as yourself would be easily able to afford a plane ticket, making the trip *and any future trips* quite pleasant. :)

No He's about as old as James and a self made millionaire with many mining claims that produce anything from silver to gold in many states, with many claims and heavy equipment why would he care?
His proof is in his bank!We've just got your word on that. Seeing as how lying comes naturally to you, why should we believe you here?

And even so, it has nothing to do with your abject failure to sucessfully dowse under test conditions that you 100% approved of and even helped design!

Of course, those interested can get the story here as usual.

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

Please explain to use again how your powers worked just fine in the open test and 'poof' magically disappeared for the real test only moments later? :rolleyes:

[wert]

Originally posted by Crossbow
'Edge' is starting to remind me of 'Lyndale Queensbury' aka 'I Can Take Pictures Of Demons'.

Both refuse to test under JREF terms, dodges questions with angry responses, and by quoting the Bible.

Oh Edge (aka Mike G.) really did take the test and failed miserably.

When you see this link, that is Edge!

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

What you see here is his attempt to spin his failure whilst still claiming to have dowsing "powers".

He desperately wants to keep his delusion intact. I'd feel sorry for him if he didn't have such a tendency towards vulgar attacks and outright non-sequitur...

[Edge]

It means you can only find the targets when you can physically see them. Also helps to prove that you can't dowse under fair test conditions that you've even approved of yourself.

No It doesn’t as I have pointed out before when mining you can't see the target or the trap that's holding it most of the time, the traps such as a crack in the clay once in a while will extend out of the river bed and out into the high bar, which is a clue but is it holding or a waste of time?

I approved of the test at that time, but will not approve of the same test in the same place. You are a dunderhead.

Once again, harping on spelling the the refuge of someone who has no answers.
You must be talking about Tricky and Richard then too right?

Nope, I expect you to take take a fair re-test and agree on terms agreeable to yourself and JREF.You know, like you did the first time you failed miserably.
A lot of miss spelled words in this one. “ take take”

Let me get this straight you want the same thing to happen again?
I will not fail a second time I have figured out why, if they can't understand a new test with new controls that are acceptable to both of us then too bad for you and them.


In other words, you're trying to disavow that the first test was fair? Or do we hear more lies and evasions about it?Calling Randi "old, forgetful, one sided" is just a totally transparent and lame way of trying to discredit he and the the fairness of the first test.
it's obvious to anyone reading your posts edge

The the, are you stuttering as you type?

What a line of ******** that is.

Someone is getting excited "the the" I have figured out why I failed the first test, now I have figured out how to pass the second why are you worried about it, and I'll say it again I do not carry crystals in my pocket that was a false statement made by him not me what ever the reasons.

Hey how convenient for you. Maybe you can find someone out their who will let you keep your self delusion intact? It’s “there”

Why would I even do something like that if it didn't work for me I would disregard it just like a tire that had a blow out.
But the fact remains that in the field while mining it works very well so the opposite is true and I will fight you to the end on it.
Come on we'll go mining in lets say May and you can be next to me in the creek or can you afford to do such a test? And then to fail, as I know you will.

Ah... I'm just guessing you don't like your shortcomings so easily exposed. I'm not going anywhere edge. I work in computers and have access all day long...

So you’re cheating your boss eh.

Don't give us lame crap like "well, I was there so I had to try" or "those mysterious waves from the copier beyond the wall sabotaged me".

Damn that wasn't the only thing that happened I seen it point to the florescent lights several times to the ballast, I would think, almost to the point of not being able to go on but I did, My bad.
It was defeating gravity. Flatworm I'll address your thoughts next I have to brake now I'll be back later tonight.

[wert]

Originally posted by Edge
[B]

No It doesn’t as I have pointed out before when mining you can't see the target or the trap that's holding it most of the time, the traps such as a crack in the clay once in a while will extend out of the river bed and out into the high bar, which is a clue but is it holding or a waste of time?Yep, another excuse. You specifically said that the targets you were using in the test were ones that you could dowse 100% of the time successfully. Are you telling us you found the Sacajawea dollars by dowsing them from under the ground originally?

Another lame excuse heard *again* and disregarded.


I approved of the test at that time, but will not approve of the same test in the same place. So you're saying that the test was unfair?

The test that you approved of 100%? The test that you even personally helped set up and design? That test?

Please give us a straight yes/no answer here? Was the test fair or not?


A lot of miss spelled words in this one. “ take take” Wow, now if you would only spend some of that time in actually giving us some straight answers! :)

But of course, the best place for straight answers concerning your failure to dowse and your subsequent lame excuses can be found here:

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

Let me get this straight you want the same thing to happen again?Nope, I just want you to take another fair test approved off and administered by the JREF that is acceptable to both of you.

I think we're all agreed that Tricky's suggestion is more than fair. Why not contact Randi and start setting up terms for the test now so that you'll be ready to reapply once your year has expired? Or could all your evasions be indicating *and pretty obviously so* that you fear a fear second re-test with Randi? :)

Your failure in the second test will speak for itself.

Besides, didn't you claim to have some mysterious "secret weapon" that you were going to use to take Randi's money? Or was that just another blustery delusion?


I will not fail a second time I have figured out why, if they can't understand a new test with new controls that are acceptable to both of us then too bad for you and them.In other words, you'll disagree with the testing procedures just enough so that you have an excuse for never actually taking a fair re-test.

Bleh. Do you ever run out of excuses edge? How about some JREF approved testing results instead?


I have figured out why I failed the first test,Sure, so have we.

You can't dowse when you're being fairly tested under conditions you approved of and even helped to set up.

now I have figured out how to pass the second why are you worried about it,Really? and what was the "true" reason for your failure? It wasn't the "electrical waves" and "gold ink in the encyclopedia" as you've claimed in the past?

and I'll say it again I do not carry crystals in my pocket that was a false statement made by him not me what ever the reasons.So now Randi is a lair eh? Conveniently lets you try to discredit the fairness of the test.
During the dowsing process, he kept up a running commentary to me on such matters as a rare "Indian root" with which he was familiar and which was a sure cure for the 'flu, a special crystal he carried on his person to ensure his good health, and a few "free energy" machines that he thought I should know about.So are we to believe that Randi was also lying about your belief in "free energy machines" and "roots that help cure the flu"?

You've proven to play fast and loose with the truth, so why should we take your word over Randi's. And yes, we all see that arguing about the crystal in another one of your weak attempts to change the subject away from your fantasy dowsing "powers"


But the fact remains that in the field while mining it works very well so the opposite is true and I will fight you to the end on it.
Come on we'll go mining in lets say May and you can be next to me in the creek or can you afford to do such a test? And then to fail, as I know you will. Hey, your first test was conducted previous to March 21, 2002, so May 2003 is past the one year deadline for you to have a fair re-test with Randi. Why not get in touch with him now to set it up? Unless you're afraid to fail publicly again of course? :)


Damn that wasn't the only thing that happened I seen it point to the florescent lights several times to the ballast, Dutifully adding "florescent lights" to the long long list of excuses we've heard from Edge....

I would think, almost to the point of not being able to go on but I did, My bad.Oh, you're just such a victim edge. That "old, forgetful, lying" Randi really sabotaged you eh?

Hey, we can point to lots of evidence that your dowsing powers are non existent edge.

Why not take a fair re-test in March or May with JREF approval and prove us all wrong?

When you pass that test, I'll gladly admit to being wrong about you.

But somehow, I'm not too worried about that particular eventuality.
:rolleyes:

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

[Edge]

Answer the question you little ****.

Come on we'll go mining in lets say May and you can be next to me in the creek or can you afford to do such a test? And then to fail, as I know you will.


Wart said “ So now Randi is a lair eh? Conveniently lets you try to discredit the fairness of the test.”

Quote: and I'll say it again I do not carry crystals in my pocket that was a false statement made by him not me whatever the reasons.

Nowhere did I say he lied. I said false statement. That leaves him plenty of wriggle room.
Why do you lie?

Wart said>> In other words, you'll disagree with the testing procedures just enough so that you have an excuse for never actually taking a fair re-test.<<
Another lie when it’s fair I’ll take it and the money if and when they agree that it’s also fair.

He's the one to say that not you, if it's fair then we'll do it, if he thinks it's not then we won't, If I think it's not then we won't damn your dumb. We have to both agree don't we?



Yep, another excuse. You specifically said that the targets you were using in the test were ones that you could dowse 100% of the time successfully. Are you telling us you found the Sacajawea dollars by dowsing them from under the ground originally?

I never said that, that's another lie perpetuated by you.
You really are a dill weed , What I said was that while checking indoors they had an attraction too, your memory sucks big time.

Why don't you read back in all the threads and put it together?

Now answer my question, “The the,” are you stuttering as you type computer whiz?

What’s your boss think about you being on the forum you little cheater while at work for him?


So are we to believe that Randi was also lying about your belief in "free energy machines" and "roots that help cure the flu"?

No we are to believe your the one lying about it as one word can change “the the” whole context you little twerp.

Flatworm we’ll set up some ideas later if they are acceptable to you they might be to Jref.
It will give me ideas on how to present them too.

There are three questions for you warts answer them if you can, Heehee. “the the”
“ take take” the challenge challenge!

[wert]

[i]Originally posted by Edge
Answer the question you little ****.

Come on we'll go mining in lets say May and you can be next to me in the creek or can you afford to do such a test? And then to fail, as I know you will.:rolleyes: How many times do you need to be told?

Self tests setup unilaterally by you mean nothing to us. Take a fair re-test with JREF and we'll give you some credibility.

Until then, all these calls to "come mining with me" are worth exactly nothing.

Nowhere did I say he lied. I said false statement. That leaves him plenty of wriggle room.ah... I see. Now you want to redefine Lie as "false Statement"

Must be convenient to be able to discredit your test result failures by claiming that Randi is guilty of making "false statements".

Randi certainly doesn't need "wriggle room" as the test he set up was very fair and you agreed to it 100%.

Tell us again why your dowsing powers magically vanished after you successfully used them in the open test. :)

Another lie when it’s fair I’ll take it and the money if and when they agree that it’s also fair.I'm guessing everyone else is noting your use of "weasel words" here to give yourself a potential out to avoid taking a fair retest. You already had that in your first test and failed miserably.
http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

Why should we think next time will be any different? Gonna pull out that "mysterious" weapon you claim to have that'll take JREF's million?


He's the one to say that not you, if it's fair then we'll do it, if he thinks it's not then we won't, If I think it's not then we won't damn your dumb. And I'm guessing you'll somehow manage to disagree with Randi and the JREF just enough that you can claim the test isn't fair and therefore avoid taking it.

We have to both agree don't we?Yep, just like the first time you helped design testing conditions, agreed to them, and then proceeded to fail miserably.


I never said that, that's another lie perpetuated by you.
You really are a dill weed

Mike was to be tested for finding gold, his specialty. The target material he had chosen, and brought along with him, consisted of five quartz stones, nine "Sacajawea" dollar coins, a gold ring, a gold nugget, and a small vial containing water and a few panned flakes. He said he had always been successful in detecting each and all of these seventeen items, when his forked stick was specifically "tuned" to pick up gold — by having a small scrap of gold fastened to its tip

Patiently waiting for you to come back with an excuse that Randi is "old", "forgetful", and makes "false statements", blah blah...

No we are to believe your the one lying about it as one word can change “the the” whole context you little twerp.Sure, I'm hoping this thread gets even more views so that folks can see the true depth of self delusion on your part. :)

Flatworm we’ll set up some ideas later if they are acceptable to you they might be to Jref.Afraid of trying to setup a test directly with Randi or the JREF?


Why can't you give us a simply yes/no answer to the following question?
Was the prelim test you took at the JREF with Randi fair?No excuses please. Yes or no. And if you have to guts to specifically say you felt the test was unfair, then let's see you logically support that conclusion without resorting to unverifiable excuses.

And why not tell us specifically what you find "unfair" about the test that Tricky proposed? Why not simply have you scan an area to be free of gold and "distractions" and simply repeat the test with the mugs there?

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Crossbow
I think I have finally figured out why Edge would want the test to be done in an outdoor enviroment.

First, it would allow him, or an aide, to salt the area well in advance, then Edge could come in find the some, or all, of the planted gold and claim sucess. Further, since it is an undefined area, there would be no way to determine how much gold actually was there, therefore all that he would have to do is find a few pieces to claim sucess.


Edge doesn't even have to find gold. All he has to do is to find any mineral, and call it a "hit".

As for "salting" the area, it's a possibility that would have to be ruled out when such a test is set up. Nobody could know where the test location would be; it would have to be selected at random so that nobody could tamper with the area -- and that includes skeptics.


Second, even if he did not find any gold, he could just claim that it was buried further than could be recovered. Hence, there would be no way to validate his claims.

By the way, one of the things I have noted about dowsers, is that there power only works when they are directly above the target and that they are unable to triangulate the location of the target. I would think that if the power was real, they would be able to do so.

As for my opinion, I think that Edge is at best dishonest, greedy, and self-deluded.

I used to "dowse" with my bare hands...just feel for the "energy". Dig consistently just about anywhere and you'll find something.

Shucks, even here in northeast Ohio there are places a person can pan for gold. Just for kicks, though. Very little ever shows, but it's there.

I know a little trick that was told to me by someone who used to crawl the mountains looking for crystals and such (gold included). Let's just say that any field test should include a restriction that keeps the dowser on low-to-non-vegetated land.

[Edge]

Quote from wart.
ah... I see. Now you want to redefine Lie as "false Statement


Again that was about carrying crystals in my pocket not any thing was said about the test, It's what he wrote about that. And then you say,


"Must be convenient to be able to discredit your test result failures by claiming that Randi is guilty of making "false statements"."

Typical skeptics tactics.
What I said was no ones perfect.
Dill weed!

[wert]

Quote from wart.
ah... I see. Now you want to redefine Lie as "false Statement
Again that was about carrying crystals in my pocket not any thing was said about the test, It's what he wrote about that.Hm, you said specifically that Randi makes "false statements"

Please tell us how that's any different than calling him a liar.

We can all see that you're trying to discredit Randi and his testing of you by claiming he's "old", "Forgetful", and makes "False Statements".

Check the highlighted red text. Are you now saying that everything else Randi said about you in his report about your test was the truth?

He only chose to make "false statements" *lie* about the crystal? :rolleyes:

When you lie about whether or not you feel that your original test was fair, should we classify that as a "false statement" also? :)

Typical skeptics tactics.

Typical Woo woo tactics = Avoiding the actual question whilst blathering on and on about an off topic subject. *crystals*

I'm going to re-post the following since these seem to be questions you seem unwilling or unable to logically answer.


Flatworm we’ll set up some ideas later if they are acceptable to you they might be to Jref.


Afraid of trying to setup a test directly with Randi or the JREF?


Why can't you give us a simply yes/no answer to the following question?

quote:
Was the prelim test you took at the JREF with Randi fair?


No excuses please. Yes or no. And if you have to guts to specifically say you felt the test was unfair, then let's see you logically support that conclusion without resorting to unverifiable excuses.

And why not tell us specifically what you find "unfair" about the test that Tricky proposed? Why not simply have you scan an area to be free of gold and "distractions" and simply repeat the test with the mugs there?

And of course, for those interested, Edge's failure to dowse under test conditions he helped set up and approved of 100% can be found here.

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

And remember folks, we have lots and lots of evidence that Edge can't dowse *see above link* and absolutely no proof that he can.

Unless you want to take his word on it that is! :rolleyes:

[Edge]

Dans e-mail back to me it took a while to find, for those that think I Plagerize.

Sure. The latest version of "Zen...." can be found at
http://members.aol.com/ddrasin/zen.html


But you may also find the following URL very useful -- it provides specific
responses to the debunkers.

http://www.survivalscience.org/debunk/ww/toc.shtml


Best wishes, and good luck!

=Dan=

[Wolverine]

http://www.mansun-nl.com/smilies/spit.gif

I've been following this thread since its inception -- and it has evolved into one of the funniest I can recall.
How much better will it get? :D :D

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Edge
Dans e-mail back to me it took a while to find, for those that think I Plagerize.
Dan's e-mail (I assume)
Sure. The latest version of "Zen...." can be found at
http://members.aol.com/ddrasin/zen.html


But you may also find the following URL very useful -- it provides specific responses to the debunkers.

http://www.survivalscience.org/debunk/ww/toc.shtml


Best wishes, and good luck!

=Dan=
I'm looking over this and I fail to see the part that says "You may reprint this without attribution". It looks to me like he was trying to get you to spread the word about his website, but instead you hid that information and presented it as your own. You did him a disservice (although, after prodding, you have finally revealed the source) and I seriously doubt he would be happy about that.

So, Edge, not only did you call people liars because they correctly pointed out that you used someone else's material without attribution, you have still not shown that you have permission to use that material without attribution. Would you care to apologize, or do you prefer to fire off another salvo of unproven assertions?

[wert]

Originally posted by Edge
Dans e-mail back to me it took a while to find, for those that think I Plagerize.

Sure. The latest version of "Zen...." can be found at

-------------woo woo link snipped


But you may also find the following URL very useful -- it provides specific
responses to the debunkers.

-------woo woo link snipped.

=Dan= Hey Edge.

In case you forgot, the topic of this thread is your inability to prove your dowsing "powers".

Not diatribes about "debunking the debunkers" or charming little religious homilies.

So, Can you answer the following questions or not? I'll repeat them again so people can see your obvious evasions and lies.


Flatworm we’ll set up some ideas later if they are acceptable to you they might be to Jref.




Afraid of trying to setup a test directly with Randi or the JREF?


Hm, you said specifically that Randi makes "false statements"
Please tell us how that's any different than calling him a liar.


Why can't you give us a simply yes/no answer to the following question?

quote:


Was the prelim test you took at the JREF with Randi fair?



No excuses please. Yes or no. And if you have to guts to specifically say you felt the test was unfair, then let's see you logically support that conclusion without resorting to unverifiable excuses.

And why not tell us specifically what you find "unfair" about the test that Tricky proposed? Why not simply have you scan an area to be free of gold and "distractions" and simply repeat the test with the mugs there?

Unless you can answer some of these, mindless cries of "come mine with me and I'll take the million" are seen as transparent attempts to avoid a second and fair re-test with JREF.

And of course, for those interested, Edge's failure to dowse under test conditions he helped set up and approved of 100% can be found here.

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

And remember folks, we have lots and lots of evidence that Edge can't dowse *see above link* and absolutely no proof that he can.

Unless you want to take his word on it that is! :rolleyes:

[Flatworm]

But you may also find the following URL very useful -- it provides specific
responses to the debunkers.

http://www.survivalscience.org/debunk/ww/toc.shtml


How many times has this been completely thrashed to pieces on this forum? It's a jumble of fallacies, but particularly favours straw man and argument from ignorance.

[Pyrrho]

Good heavens, not that thing again...it's just another tribute to Saint Radin.

[wert]

Originally posted by Flatworm


How many times has this been completely thrashed to pieces on this forum? It's a jumble of fallacies, but particularly favours straw man and argument from ignorance. It's just Edge trying to change the topic.

[wert]

Edge, where are ya buddy?

We miss all your fun name calling and refusal to answer straightforward questions about your self professed dowsing "powers". :)

[Quasi]

Hello Edge,

I was curious if you have tested yourself in the new location, above merely dowsing the area. Also, could you state five solid ideas or facts that must be true in order for dowsing to be true?

[Edge]

No not yet. The last time I went to Lauderdale the ground outside there was promising but I would have to check more to know for sure that it could be retested there.

In the fields were I worked the ground it worked every time and if I made a jump with out dowsing 9 out 0f 10 times I would do poorly.

If you dowse and you try to stop the reaction the willow will arch and keep going any way.

I have been on a big load and the next thing that would happen is the stick twists free from the bark.

Another thing that will happen is it will literally snap the stick at one point in your hand.

There is the test above where I mention it spinning as you travel down the road; this was checked with two dowsers in the car.

I have re-dowsed the spot were I'm dredging to see if I picked up all of the gold before moving on and It has been proven to me one way or the other, That there was more or that the dig was clean.

I can scan the horizon and get a direction and go toward it and dig and find it under foot.

[Flatworm]

Originally posted by Edge

If you dowse and you try to stop the reaction the willow will arch and keep going any way.

I have been on a big load and the next thing that would happen is the stick twists free from the bark.

Another thing that will happen is it will literally snap the stick at one point in your hand.


You've mentioned this before. You talked about how it keeps twisting no matter how hard you grasp it, but goes back to normal if you let go.

Doesn't this suggest something to you? You're twisting and breaking the stick with your own hands!

[wert]

Originally posted by Edge
No not yet. The last time I went to Lauderdale the ground outside there was promising but I would have to check more to know for sure that it could be retested there.Ahh... Now the condition of the ground is a possible excuse. I'm guessing you'll add it to the arsenal of lame excuses you've been using to avoid a fair re-test with Randi and the JREF.

In the fields were I worked the ground it worked every time and if I made a jump with out dowsing 9 out 0f 10 times I would do poorly.We don't give a damn about your "self tests" where everything seems to magically "Work every time".

As "proof" it's useless. We'll believe you and give you credibility after you pass the prelim test with the JREF.

There is the test above where I mention it spinning as you travel down the road; this was checked with two dowsers in the car.We also don't accept the anecdotes of other woo-woo dowsers as evidence.

I have re-dowsed the spot were I'm dredging to see if I picked up all of the gold before moving on ....Hey, March isn't so far away. If you can verify that a certain area is "gold free" then why not take the same exact test you took with Randi on that "gold free" piece of land?


Now, we'd really like some straightforward answers to the following questions.

Was the prelim test you took at the JREF with Randi fair?No excuses please. Yes or No.

And if you have to guts to specifically say you felt the test was unfair, then let's see you logically support that conclusion without resorting to unverifiable excuses. So far, the only "answer" you've given us to this very important question is nonsense like:

"Yes it was fair, but... (insert lame excuse here)"

or

"Well Randi is old, forgetful and makes false statements'

And why not tell us specifically what you find "unfair" about the test that Tricky proposed?

Why not simply have you scan an area to be free of gold and "distractions" and simply repeat the test with the mugs there?

Why not submit this potential re-test idea to Randi himself?

For that matter, why aren't you in contact with Randi now about setting up for a fair re-test in March?

And please, no more lame excuses about your availability or unwillingness to travel. We see them for the transparent evasions they are...

You've claimed that your dowsing "skills" were at work in the open test with the target in the coffee mugs.

You scored 100% in this test and then moments later, failed miserably in the actual test.

If your powers were working so well one moment, what happened?

Did that "old" "Forgetful" Randi sabotage your test somehow in the short interval from the open to the real test?

Randi asked you if you believed your 100% success was due to your dowsing "Skills". You answered in the affirmative.

Were you lying at that point or simply making "false statements"?

Why are you asking flatworm to set up a re-test rather than Randi and the JREF?

Randi bent over backwards to give you a fair test and said he expects you back to try again. By speaking with Randi, I'm sure you both could come up with a test you can both agree on. You agreed once and I'm sure you could again. Why not use Tricky's suggestion when you discuss your fair re-test with Randi?

Your attempts to make excuses and ask others *tricky* indicates that you have little real intention of seeking a fair re-test with the JREF.

Why do you persist in regaling us with anecdotes about your mining skills and how well your dowsing seems to work when you're conveniently not being tested by the JREF?As I've stated before. The only proof we'll accept is a fair re-test with JREF. Anything else is seen as a tranparent ploy to somehow wriggle away from the fact that we have real evidence that you can't dowse. Your anecdotes mean less than nothing as far as proving anything goes.




Want to see some really good evidence that Edge's imagined dowsing "skills" don't exist? (except in his imagination perhaps)

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

Keep in mind that Edge *aka Mike G.* helped set up the test himself and approved of the conditions 100%.

Want some really good evidence that Edge really can dowse?

Um... You'll be waiting a while.

We have plenty of evidence that he can't dowse and absolutely no credible evidence that he can.

Edge also seems to be making every possible excuse to avoid another fair re-test of his dowsing "skills" with JREF in March.... :rolleyes:

[Edge]

Damn wart your more anti-dowsing fanatical that I am pro-dowsing fanatical.
I was answering Quasi. Those are my reasons............

The test was done from their perspective and yes I accepted the challenge, I probably would not have accepted but the thing took so long to set up. I had a pressing need to do it only De-Bunk knows why.
It was not a scientifically controlled theater of operation from the believers’ point of view or from a scientific point of view.

False positive results are something I have never had to deal with as in the field when mining they rarely happen and I can't think of one mistake that dowsing has caused me when mining.

In his office it seemed when I found it to be clear it would show up later in or under a new cup.

Further more I think the explanation of it is wrong and I don’t think it's paranormal.

My main concern is that it’s not against Gods law.

You need to take a chill pill.

I’m trying to figure out how to re do it so it’s fair and if I say it is the next time and I fail “which I doubt” I will admit to it, But if it goes the way I think it will either there or in the field you my friend will have to place a retraction of all your crap.

You see it has worked for me and made me lots of money and I haven’t done it or been back since 95 but I will go to the gold fields again soon.

I don’t see any reason why it should not be tested there.

I’m sure if they went there they would see how hard it is to fake it as we go down through the layers of over burden and a geologist could examine the ground as we descend and tell if it was naturally there or seeded you see no one has control, that is the truth, not me, not Jref, not James.
He will lose at that point I will hit what ever is there a little or a lot 10 out of 10 times.
I can’t explain it any better or easier than that. If it is against Gods laws then I will lose, but how come when mining I do not lose?
My explanations if I am correct opens up a whole new field that will deal with gravity and movement if I am correct.
That is something that is yet to be proved but if I am right about this well then it opens up a whole new field.



Only De-bunk knows that I will probably take it again.
And now so do you, but I will not agree to do it inside a building again, and the ground down in ft. Lauderdale has to be checked, which will take time and money.
I will say if checked and not acceptable to me right off the bat, the next move is theirs because it will be in the field if they want to pursue it……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………… Do you understand period?

Because you sound like your having one!!!! HeHeHe
:eek:

[Pyrrho]

Edge, the problem with your "in the field" scenario is that there is no way to set a "control" for the test. Unless a baseline is established, you can dig through the strata and claim any trace amount of gold as a "hit", especially if your intent is to hold the test in "the gold fields".

Assuming this scenario is acceptable, what kind of gold are you talking about? Nuggets? Gold veins? Gold ore? It's not always "yellow" gold, am I correct?


You see it has worked for me and made me lots of money and I haven’t done it or been back since 95 but I will go to the gold fields again soon.

I don’t see any reason why it should not be tested there.

I’m sure if they went there they would see how hard it is to fake it as we go down through the layers of over burden and a geologist could examine the ground as we descend and tell if it was naturally there or seeded you see no one has control, that is the truth, not me, not Jref, not James.


If your plan is to dowse for gold "in the gold fields", aren't you tilting the odds in your favor? You already know what to look for; any practiced miner wouldn't need dowsing for that.

If you're talking about gold found in cracks in the rock layers, I agree that it's unlikely you could "seed" the gold. If you're talking about digging out a crystal pocket there's a remote chance that you could. The possibility has to be eliminated for your demonstration to be "clean". Elminating any chance for cheating works in your favor.

[wert]

Originally posted by Edge
Damn wart your more anti-dowsing fanatical that I am pro-dowsing fanatical.Nope, I just want some actual credible proof that you can sucessfully dowse under fair test conditions. Right now, we have nothing but your word on it. In fact, we have lots of credible evidence that quite clearly indicates that you can't dowse. And that evidence is right here.

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

The test was done from their perspective********.

You helped create the test with Randi. So I guess it had to be from your "perspective" also or you never would have agreed to it.

Besides, "perspective" or no, you still managed to fail miserably at a test you helped design and that you approved 100%.


and yes I accepted the challenge,Of course you did. You helped create it and accepted the test conditions 100% according to Randi. Unless you're accusing him of "making false statements again".

I probably would not have accepted but the thing took so long to set up.Another excuse. Regardless of how long it took to setup, you could have backed out or changed the test conditions at any time. The reason is took so long to setup is because you and Randi *Both* had to agree that the test conditions were fair to you both. The fact it took a while shows that the test was fully thought out and approved by both of you. It actually strengthens the fact that the test was fair.

Ok, Now let's try this.

Can you answer this question clearly Edge?

Was the preliminary test you took at the JREF with Randi Fair?

Please answer with a "Yes" or a "No".

And support your answers with actual facts. We could care less whether you test was taken from a "different perspective" or whether you think Randi Sabotaged you with mysterious "electrical waves" coming through the wall. Give us a straight answer and we'll give you some crediblity.


I had a pressing need to do it only De-Bunk knows why.And you helped create the test, agreed to it 100%, failed miserably, and now want to lie and spin excuses to explain that failure. Bleh.

It was not a scientifically controlled theater of operation from the believers’ point of view or from a scientific point of view.Irrelevant. I could care less whether you now want to claim the test condition were "unscientific" or not. You agreed to them 100%, so no bitching about them now.

I just care whether or not you can actually dowse successfully under fair test conditions.

Nice attempt to change the subject again. :rolleyes:

False positive results are something I have never had to deal with as in the field when mining they rarely happen and I can't think of one mistake that dowsing has caused me when mining.Ahh... The old "It only works in the field" excuse.

When asked about the targets you used in the Prelim test (Sacajawea "gold" dollars, etc), you stated....

He said he had always been successful in detecting each and all of these seventeen items, when his forked stick was specifically "tuned" to pick up gold — by having a small scrap of gold fastened to its tip. That's a common claim made by dowsers, that their stick/rod/pendulum is sensitive to the substance attached to it. We decided to use the entire package of seventeen items, sealed in a plastic bag, to give Mike the maximum chance of finding his target

Are you saying that you always found these particular items before only in a field by mining for them? Or are you going to claim Randi is "old" "forgetful" and simply making "false statements" again?

Anyways, that brings us to another question you haven't answered. You ramble on about "false positives" not understanding that the "open test" was designed to eliminate that exact possibilty.

To wit.

(4) The performer has the opportunity of deciding for himself — in the "open" tests — whether it's his powers, or just his foreknowledge of the answer, that is actually at work. Mike was convinced of the former.

In his office it seemed when I found it to be clear it would show up later in or under a new cup.But conveniently you were able to find the target 100% of the time in the open test.

Once again, you're wriggling away from another question you won't answer. I'll repeat it and see if you ignore it or spin more excuses

You've claimed that your dowsing "skills" were at work in the open test with the target in the coffee mugs.

You scored 100% in this test and then moments later, failed miserably in the actual test.

If your powers were working so well one moment, what happened?

Did that "old" "Forgetful" Randi sabotage your test somehow in the short interval from the open to the real test?

Randi asked you if you believed your 100% success was due to your dowsing "Skills". You answered in the affirmative.

Were you lying at that point or simply making "false statements"?

Further more I think the explanation of it is wrong and I don’t think it's paranormal.Hey, we could care less wheter you consider dowsing 'paranormal" or not. Just quit yapping about it, and actually prove you can do it under fair test conditions. Another attempt to change the subject duly noted and ignored.


My main concern is that it’s not against Gods law.Irrelevant. Yet another lame attempt to change the subject noted.

I’m trying to figure out how to re do it so it’s fair Ok, this brings us to another question you won't give us a straight answer to.

Why not submit this potential re-test idea to Randi himself?

For that matter, why aren't you in contact with Randi now about setting up for a fair re-test in March?

And why not tell us specifically what you find "unfair" about the test that Tricky proposed?

Why not simply have you scan an area to be free of gold and "distractions" and simply repeat the test with the mugs there?Tell us that we need to take your word on it that you're searching for a fair test isn't good enough. Why wouldn't you involve Randi and the JREF now to be ready for your Re-test as soon as possible in March. I'd suggest you're afraid to fail again and simply are looking for excuses not to take a fair re-test with the JREF.

And please, no more lame excuses about your availability or unwillingness to travel. We see them for the transparent evasions they are...


and if I say it is the next time and I fail “which I doubt” I will admit to it, Nah, you failed once under fair test conditions that you

Helped create

And

Approved of 100%


After your abject failure to dowse under these condtions, all you've done is lie and give us excuses so you can still maintain that you're a successful dowser.


But if it goes the way I think it will either there or in the fieldMore excuses. No reasons exists that you can't talk to the JREF and setup a test in a field. You can even use tricky's sugggestion to use a field that you dowse to be free of gold and then use the same exact test you did before. Please explain to use why using tricky's suggestion would be unfair or wouldn't work for you?

you my friend will have to place a retraction of all your crap. You pass a fair prelim test with the JREF and Randi and I'll gladly do so.

Since you've claimed you have a "secret weapon" for the next time, I'm sure you'll take the JREFS money easily eh? :rolleyes:


I'm really not too worried about it.... :)

You see it has worked for me and made me lots of money and I haven’t done it or been back since 95 but I will go to the gold fields again soon.As we told you before, we're not a damn bit interested in your unveriable personal anecdotes.

Pass the test with the JREF and we'll respect that.

Anything else is just talk.


I don’t see any reason why it should not be tested there.And as stated before, you need to take this up with the JREF. Statements like this are a transparent ploy to make an excuse later on for not taking a fair re-test with the JREF.


I’m sure if they went there they would see how hard it is to fake it as we go down through the layers of over burden and a geologist could examine the ground as we descend and tell if it was naturally there or seeded you see no one has control, that is the truth, not me, not Jref, not James.Another attempt to change the subject.

Since you're so good at dowsing.

Dowse and area to be free of gold to your satisfaction.

Repeat the test you took with Randi originally in that "gold free" area.

Take your lumps as you fail again miserably.

And don't waste our time trying to make the re-test sound so difficult that you can't *won't* take it.


He will lose at that point I will hit what ever is there a little or a lot 10 out of 10 times. Sure, do it under conditions agreeable to Randi and JREF and we'll believe you.

All I'm hearing from you is talk.

Let's see you actually do it with Randi and the JREF.


I can’t explain it any better or easier than that. If it is against Gods laws then I will lose, but how come when mining I do not lose? Another completely irrelevant attempt to change the subject. We don't give a damn what your deity thinks.

We just want to see you do what you say you can do under fair test conditions with the JREF.

My explanations if I am correct opens up a whole new field that will deal with gravity and movement if I am correct.
That is something that is yet to be proved but if I am right about this well then it opens up a whole new field. Stop wasting our time talking about it and prove it then. With the JREF and Randi, not with your own anecdotal "self tests" please.

Only De-bunk knows that I will probably take it again.Even Randi thinks you'll re-take the test.

Why not talk to Randi now so you can take the test in March and prove us all wrong eh?

Right now, everyone can see you making excuses not to do so.

Make us eat our words if you can. :rolleyes:

And now so do you, but I will not agree to do it inside a building again, and the ground down in ft. Lauderdale has to be checked, which will take time and money.Once again trying to use excuses which don't wash.

Here are some facts for you edge.

JREF doesn't require that you take the test in Fort Lauderdale.


You can easily check any piece of ground near you to make sure it's suitable. JREF has operatives all over the world and I'm sure you and Randi could work something out.

Geologists need not be involved at all if you can really (as you claim) dowse an area to be "gold free"

Please discontinue using this as a possible excuse not to take the fair re-test with Randi and the JREF. We see right through such lame attempts.


I will say if checked and not acceptable to me right off the bat,Yep, and since you can check an area so easily and quickly, that should make finding a suitable area fairly painless. Than you can re-take the exact same test you took before on that spot. And you'll fail again.

the next move is theirs because it will be in the field if they want to pursue Nope! The next move is yours!

You are the one who has to reapply for the test

You are the one who has to contact the JREF about setting up fair test conditions.


The burden isn't on Randi and the JREF to pursue you to set-up the re-test. That burden is on you.

The only thing the JREF is resposible for is accepting your application and then working with you to to setup a fair test as agreed to by both parties.

Gee, by putting the theortical burden on them, you wouldn't be looking for another excuse to get out of a fair re-test now would you edge? :rolleyes:

Randi spent a lot of his valuable time working out a fair test with you before. If you fill out the proper application, there is no reason to believe he will be any less than fair with you again.

you understand period?

Because you sound like your having one!!!! HeHeH
*sigh*


Anyways, this is a long post, so for those who might miss it, here is plenty of evidence that Edge is a complete fraud when he claims he can succesfully dowse.

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

Can Edge offer us any credible proof to support his claims?

Ummm. No.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Edge

If you dowse and you try to stop the reaction the willow will arch and keep going any way.
Glad you brought this up, Edge. Some dowsers have claimed that the dowsing rod merely acts as an "antenna" and that the force for movement actually comes from the dowser as he picks up the antenna's signal. However, you are clearly indicating there is a strong force, strong enough to bend a willow rod, between the target and the rod.

So now we have a very simple thing to prove. Put a small piece of gold on the ground and dowse over it. If there is actually a force between the gold and the rod, then the rod will pick up the gold. If the force is pulling the rod down, then the rod is pulling the gold up with equal force (hint: Newton's Third Law (http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html) It's in all the science books).

In fact, if you dowsed over a stream bed containing gold particles, you should be able to eliminate the need to pan by simply pulling them out with your dowsing rod.

Or, you could simply try to attract a gold pendulum with your dowsing rod, something you have already admitted you were unable to do.

Oh, and one other thing. Many months ago when you first said that the rod was twisting in your hands even though you were holding it tightly, I proposed that this must mean that the bark sheared away from the stick. At the time, you denied this was happening, but now I see you have incorporated this scenario into your mythology.
Edge said
I have been on a big load and the next thing that would happen is the stick twists free from the bark.

A pattern is becoming clear. The further something is in the past, the more you believe it is true. A stray remark by someone is transposed into an actual event. This may explain your inability to separate illusion from reality and your tendency to accept every paranormal phenomenon ever described. It appears that in your mind, if someone said it, it must be true.

Hi everyone. I'm curious if Edge ever posted the entire email exchange that took place between himself and Randi before the JREF test. Edge did this on another board and it's especially interesting to read Randi's response when Edge asked "I get to check for interference Right?" Randi was quite specific that the test should NOT take place until Edge could find a location that was completely satisfactory to him.

Randi's reply, according to Edge:

Dowsers -- all of them -- just love to invoke "interferences." Sure. We always let them "check," they find that they have to move to another spot, they check it out, that's okay, and they do the test. And they fail. As you will.

And, note: if you find a spot that's "okay" but not "quite right," that won't do. You have to do the test in a spot that you declare to be 100% okay, None of this "It's not right, but I'll ry it anyway" nonsense.

You bring the object you'll try to find -- gold, whatever. We'll supply the cups.

You still didn't tell me: what percentage of the guesses will be "hits" if we do ten trials of trying to find the gold in one of ten cups? Pure chance calls for you to find it one or two time out of the ten. What will YOUR success rate be?

Just so you understand:

1. You will come here, and find a spot where you don't have any "interference." You will agree that all conditions are correct, or the tests will be postponed.

2. The "open" trials. You will try to detect the gold when it has been placed into one of the ten numbered cups, but the cups are open, so we can all see where it is. You will do this ten times. You must be successful ten times.

3. The "closed" trials. For the actual test, one of us, without anyone else watching, will arrive at a random number, place the gold in one of the ten cups, and seal all the cups. That person will then leave the area and we will enter.

4. You will try to find which is the cup that has the gold in it. You will announce the number of the cup, and your answer will be written down. We will then open all the cups to find the gold, and the number of the actual cup will be recorded.

5. You will repeat this procedure ten times.

6. Chance alone would expect that you would be correct once or twice in the ten trials. If you fail to reach a significant score, you will have failed the preliminary phase of the challenge, and you must wait 12 months before re-applying.

That "significant score" will depend on what your expectation is. In such a test, how many will you get correct?

James Randi

[Quasi]

Hello again,

Edge,

I think I was wondering about Dowsing in general, for example:

1) You must use a live divining rod
2) You must "tune" the rod to the object to be found
3) The divining rod must be held by a live human (Could a robot use a live divining rod, and could you place a detector on the rod to see if it pulls down?)
4) The rod must be held by a live anmial (could you attach a live rod to a trained dog to find the gold?)
5) What is the scope of dowsing? What type of objects cannot be found? Example, you probably can't dowse for objects near the earth's crust, but can for water, gold, etc.
6) Have you tested yourself often with a friend, so you do not know where the objects are? What are the results?

[Wolverine]

*drum roll*

[Flatworm]

Originally posted by Tricky


So now we have a very simple thing to prove. Put a small piece of gold on the ground and dowse over it. If there is actually a force between the gold and the rod, then the rod will pick up the gold. If the force is pulling the rod down, then the rod is pulling the gold up with equal force (hint: Newton's Third Law (http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html) It's in all the science books).


When Edge first appeared on this forum, we had him put himself through a much more sensitive test. We asked him to suspend a gold sample from the ceiling using a thin thread, then try to hold that sample away from the vertical using the attraction from his dowsing rod. He failed to detect even a millinewton of force, but of course that didn't stop him from believing.

[Quasi]

So the idea is that the attractive force from the rod would swing the gold on the thread towards the rod, similar to a magnet and a piece of metal. I like that experiment.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Quasi
So the idea is that the attractive force from the rod would swing the gold on the thread towards the rod, similar to a magnet and a piece of metal. I like that experiment.

Yes, that's it exactly. And Edge even admitted he tried it, but this mighty force that could rip the bark off a willow rod could not move a tiny pendulum of gold a single millimeter. Amazingly, (to anyone unfamilar with him) Edge did not take this to be evidence that the force did not exist. The boy is more deep in denial than a Cairo crocodile.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Tricky
The boy is more deep in denial than a Cairo crocodile.

*rimshot*

:D :D :D

[MRC_Hans]

Actually, if we are to give Edge some credit (he shure needs it, hehe), the fact that the dowsing rod does not exert a (perceptible) force on the gold is no proof that the dowsing rod cannot detect the gold. After all, in your experiment, you can also plainly SEE the gold, without moving it one bit.

Hans

[Tricky]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Actually, if we are to give Edge some credit (he shure needs it, hehe), the fact that the dowsing rod does not exert a (perceptible) force on the gold is no proof that the dowsing rod cannot detect the gold. After all, in your experiment, you can also plainly SEE the gold, without moving it one bit.

Hans
While I admit that the sight of gold can cause an object to move (case in point: My wife moves toward the jewelry counter when she sees gold), I doubt that this is the sort of force that Edge is talking about.

I have already pointed out that some dowsers claim the rod is only an "antenna" which causes the sensitive mind of the dowser to twitch the rod, but Edge has already denied this. He claims he has tried to hold the rod steady but the attractive force pulled it so strongly that it sheared the bark off the dowsing rod when he tried to hold it back. It is this contention that makes Edge's claim so easy to test with a pendulum of gold. Of course, all dowsing claims are relatively easy to test, and they don't involve excavating large volumes of rock.

[Edge]

Edge's claim so easy to test with a pendulum of gold. Of course, all dowsing claims are relatively easy to test, and they don't involve excavating large volumes of rock.

Excavating a large or small amount of overburden is relatively easy if you have the right tools, you guys keep talking out your ass.

But you see it is not a magnetic attraction and I'm not sure if it's a magnetic field distortion that is picked up, what ever it is in the field it works....

There are many neutral places, there in between loads so your out door test Tricky can be done there just as well as Florida it depends where I’m living.

I'm pretty sure gold is non magnetic.
It’s kind of like Gravity and magnetism are two different things.

Who’s to say it’s not a one-way thing?

I don’t mine with out dowsing.

When I mine I get what ever is there.
There is nothing left.

It’s very easy to test in the field that way.

Watch me make money.

It’s either there or not but you might pick up a speck or two but compare it to picking up steadily, lets say a once or so, in a place that I say is worth mining and compare it to a place I say is not.

After a day or two of that you’ll believe it.


Quasi #1
Live is better, or rather the greener is more responsive.

#2 Put silver or gold in the end Then no water is detected.
#3 I have worked with a mechanism that eliminated the human
And the organic.
I'm experimenting with some successes still not sure because you need a sterile environment.

#4 You could be right I never though of it that way except that the gold that's under tons of overburden has been in that part of the gravity field a long time, does it have some thing to do with it?
Maybe ? Gold has been there for some time unless it’s just moved in recent time, you can tell that too but more experiments have to be done, Dam how do you explain the success rate that I have had?

#5 Yes, I mentioned the experiment somewhere in here.
When he dowses I follow his lead because I know he is just as good as i am at it.
He stayed he is a local resident there and grew up there, he is the one that sent the crystals as he was amassed by them also, He said they are rare up there and those types are only found in two places it's something I didn't know about when I was there so when I get back I’ll have to check him on that one because I have never been mislead by a pocket of quartz and that stuff is every where.
I would have to say he's right.

[dmarker]

Edge,

I just have to ask. How is gold in the ground easier to detect than gold under a cup?

[Edge]

#4 You could be right I never though of it that way except that the gold that's under tons of overburden has been in that part of the gravity field a long time, does it have some thing to do with it?
Maybe ? Gold has been there for some time unless it’s just moved in recent time, you can tell that too but more experiments have to be done, Dam how do you explain the success rate that I have had?

In the field.

[wert]

Hey edge!

Why not answer some of my actual questions?

I'm gonna re-post them again so everyone can see you clearly ignore the questions that you can't *or won't* answer.


Ok, Now let's try this.

Can you answer this question clearly Edge?

Was the preliminary test you took at the JREF with Randi Fair?

Please answer with a "Yes" or a "No".

And support your answers with actual facts. We could care less whether you test was taken from a "different perspective" or whether you think Randi Sabotaged you with mysterious "electrical waves" coming through the wall. Give us a straight answer and we'll give you some crediblity.


It was not a scientifically controlled theater of operation from the believers’ point of view or from a scientific point of view.Irrelevant. I could care less whether you now want to claim the test condition were "unscientific" or not. You agreed to them 100%, so no bitching about them now.

Why are the conditions of the test (which you agreed to btw) suddenly suspect for being unscientific?

False positive results are something I have never had to deal with as in the field when mining they rarely happen and I can't think of one mistake that dowsing has caused me when mining.Ahh... The old "It only works in the field" excuse.

When asked about the targets you used in the Prelim test (Sacajawea "gold" dollars, etc), you stated....

He said he had always been successful in detecting each and all of these seventeen items, when his forked stick was specifically "tuned" to pick up gold — by having a small scrap of gold fastened to its tip. That's a common claim made by dowsers, that their stick/rod/pendulum is sensitive to the substance attached to it. We decided to use the entire package of seventeen items, sealed in a plastic bag, to give Mike the maximum chance of finding his target

Are you saying that you always found these particular items before only in a field by mining for them?

Or are you going to claim Randi is "old" "forgetful" and simply making "false statements" again?


Hey folks, here is the actual amount of items used as the target for edge's dowsing test. He claims infallibility in finding all this stuff.

http://www.randi.org/images/032902-G2.jpg

To make things fair for edge, all of the items were lumped into one big package to increase his odds of finding them. He still failed miserably.


Anyways, that brings us to another question you haven't answered. You ramble on about "false positives" not understanding that the "open test" was designed to eliminate that exact possibilty.

To wit.

(4) The performer has the opportunity of deciding for himself — in the "open" tests — whether it's his powers, or just his foreknowledge of the answer, that is actually at work. Mike was convinced of the former.

In his office it seemed when I found it to be clear it would show up later in or under a new cup.But conveniently you were able to find the target 100% of the time in the open test.

Once again, you're wriggling away from another question you won't answer. I'll repeat it and see if you ignore it or spin more excuses

You've claimed that your dowsing "skills" were at work in the open test with the target in the coffee mugs.

You scored 100% in this test and then moments later, failed miserably in the actual test.

If your powers were working so well one moment, what happened?

Did that "old" "Forgetful" Randi sabotage your test somehow in the short interval from the open to the real test?

Randi asked you if you believed your 100% success was due to your dowsing "Skills". You answered in the affirmative.

Were you lying at that point or simply making "false statements"?

I’m trying to figure out how to re do it so it’s fair Ok, this brings us to another question you won't give us a straight answer to.

Why not submit this potential re-test idea to Randi himself?

For that matter, why aren't you in contact with Randi now about setting up for a fair re-test in March?

And why not tell us specifically what you find "unfair" about the test that Tricky proposed?

Why not simply have you scan an area to be free of gold and "distractions" and simply repeat the test with the mugs there?Tell us that we need to take your word on it that you're searching for a fair test isn't good enough. Why wouldn't you involve Randi and the JREF now to be ready for your Re-test as soon as possible in March. I'd suggest you're afraid to fail again and simply are looking for excuses not to take a fair re-test with the JREF.

And please, no more lame excuses about your availability or unwillingness to travel. We see them for the transparent evasions they are...


and if I say it is the next time and I fail “which I doubt” I will admit to it, Nah, you failed once under fair test conditions that you

Helped create

And

Approved of 100%


After your abject failure to dowse under these condtions, all you've done is lie and give us excuses so you can still maintain that you're a successful dowser.


But if it goes the way I think it will either there or in the fieldMore excuses. No reasons exists that you can't talk to the JREF and setup a test in a field. You can even use tricky's sugggestion to use a field that you dowse to be free of gold and then use the same exact test you did before. Please explain to use why using tricky's suggestion would be unfair or wouldn't work for you?


I don’t see any reason why it should not be tested there.And as stated before, you need to take this up with the JREF. Statements like this are a transparent ploy to make an excuse later on for not taking a fair re-test with the JREF.

I’m sure if they went there they would see how hard it is to fake it as we go down through the layers of over burden and a geologist could examine the ground as we descend and tell if it was naturally there or seeded you see no one has control, that is the truth, not me, not Jref, not James.Another attempt to change the subject.

Since you're so good at dowsing.

Dowse and area to be free of gold to your satisfaction.

Repeat the test you took with Randi originally in that "gold free" area.

Take your lumps as you fail again miserably.

And don't waste our time trying to make the re-test sound so difficult that you can't *won't* take it.

Only De-bunk knows that I will probably take it again.Even Randi thinks you'll re-take the test.

Why not talk to Randi now so you can take the test in March and prove us all wrong eh?

Right now, everyone can see you making excuses not to do so.

Make us eat our words if you can. :rolleyes:

And now so do you, but I will not agree to do it inside a building again, and the ground down in ft. Lauderdale has to be checked, which will take time and money.Once again trying to use excuses which don't wash.

Here are some facts for you edge.

JREF doesn't require that you take the test in Fort Lauderdale.


You can easily check any piece of ground near you to make sure it's suitable. JREF has operatives all over the world and I'm sure you and Randi could work something out.

Geologists need not be involved at all if you can really (as you claim) dowse an area to be "gold free"

Please discontinue using this as a possible excuse not to take the fair re-test with Randi and the JREF. We see right through such lame attempts.


I will say if checked and not acceptable to me right off the bat,Yep, and since you can check an area so easily and quickly, that should make finding a suitable area fairly painless. Than you can re-take the exact same test you took before on that spot. And you'll fail again.

the next move is theirs because it will be in the field if they want to pursue Nope! The next move is yours!

You are the one who has to reapply for the test

You are the one who has to contact the JREF about setting up fair test conditions.


The burden isn't on Randi and the JREF to pursue you to set-up the re-test. That burden is on you.

The only thing the JREF is resposible for is accepting your application and then working with you to to setup a fair test as agreed to by both parties.

Gee, by putting the theoretical burden on them, you wouldn't be looking for another excuse to get out of a fair re-test now would you edge? :rolleyes:

Please explain to us why the "burden is on Randi" to pursue you for another test.

Randi spent a lot of his valuable time working out a fair test with you before. If you fill out the proper application, there is no reason to believe he will be any less than fair with you again.

Once again, here is credible evidence that Edge is a complete fraud in terms of his claim to be a successful dowser.

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html



C'mon Edge old buddy.

Let's see if you can actually answer some of the above questions rather than ignoring them.


No answers just verifies you for the lying fraud that you are. :rolleyes:

[wert]

Originally posted by Edge

Excavating a large or small amount of overburden is relatively easy if you have the right tools, you guys keep talking out your ass.You persist in believing that this is even necessary for a fair re-test.

We all see it for the lame excuse that it is Edge. A stupid transparent diversion.

Quit using this lame excuse. You've claimed you can dowse a field to be "gold free". Just do so and use the same exact test you used before in Randi's office.

But you see it is not a magnetic attraction and I'm not sure if it's a magnetic field distortion that is picked up, what ever it is in the field it works....More excuses showing why "it only works in a field"


There are many neutral places, there in between loads so your out door test Tricky can be done there just as well as Florida it depends where I’m living.So you support tricky's test conditions? Why not submit those conditions to the JREF for a fair re-test?

I'm pretty sure gold is non magnetic.
It’s kind of like Gravity and magnetism are two different things. Irrelevant gibberish noted.


It’s very easy to test in the field that way.No reason the JREF won't test you in a field edge.

Watch me make money.Win the million and we'll talk. :rolleyes:


After a day or two of that you’ll believe it. No more anecdotes or unverifiable claims please.



I'm experimenting with some successes still not sure because you need a sterile environment.Hm. sure you are. Try getting some of those "successes" under fair test conditions and we'll listen to you.

Dam how do you explain the success rate that I have had? You have no credibly tested success rate. Only what you want us to take your word on. No thanks.

Yes, I mentioned the experiment somewhere in here.
When he dowses I follow his lead because I know he is just as good as i am at it.And once again, why won't this fine dowser get tested and easily earn the million?

Perhaps he doesn't want to be publicly humiliated like the guy in the following link?

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Edge
Dam how do you explain the success rate that I have had?

In the field.

Because you know what to look for.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Edge
#4 You could be right I never though of it that way except that the gold that's under tons of overburden has been in that part of the gravity field a long time, does it have some thing to do with it?
Maybe ? Gold has been there for some time unless it’s just moved in recent time, you can tell that too but more experiments have to be done, Dam how do you explain the success rate that I have had?

In the field.

Gravity is gravity is gravity, the whole earth is subject to the same forces. The overburden is carrying the same pressure per inch that you are. So is any gold removed from the ground. I can believe that excuse if you went dousing on Mars, but here on Earth...naa.

Where in the field did you look? Did you go to places with established veins of gold ore or places where no gold had ever been found?

And what about the gold on the stick? If gold in the ground is that much different than gold that has been dug up, how can the gold on the tip of the stick work?

[Flatworm]

Originally posted by Edge

Excavating a large or small amount of overburden is relatively easy if you have the right tools, you guys keep talking out your ass.


Not moving any earth or rock whatsoever is even easier, no matter what tools you have.


Who’s to say it’s not a one-way thing?


Sir Isaac Newton.


I don’t mine with out dowsing.

When I mine I get what ever is there.
There is nothing left.


Remind me again what you do for a living? Oh, that's right- mining for gold, even with your supernatural powers, doesn't earn you enough money to do it full-time.


It’s very easy to test in the field that way.


You have yet to explain how a "mined-out" test would separate variables.


Watch me make money.


What, as a contractor?

[Quasi]

I guess I have to ask, Edge, you seem to post a lot on JREF, do you feel like you are getting anything out of it? It seems like you take a lot of abuse. I am just wondering if you get a kick out of it, or whether you feel the feedback is helpful in some way.

[Edge]

I laugh a lot.

Some of the feed back has shown me different ways of looking at the paranormal.

[wert]

Originally posted by Edge
I laugh a lot.

Some of the feed back has shown me different ways of looking at the paranormal. So in other words, you can't or won't answer a single one of the direct questions I asked in my last post?

Thought so. :rolleyes:

Hey Folks.

Check out the clear evidence that Edges *aka Mike G's* dowsing skills are a complete delusion.

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

[Quasi]

I see the paranorman very differently than you do. Its pretty interesting, as I see many of the ancient "tricks" such as cold reading etc. are being "standardized." For example, Miss Cleo had a two day, weekend seminar on how to do cold reading over the phone, thats it, just two days to be psychic. Its that easy. Also, "alternative medicine" is the standardization of outdated, useless ideas or outright frauds in order to sell worthless procedures, and worthless dietary supplements. You can actually go to a school where they will teach you how to scam people, such as Basra University. When I see these people in action, they are either delusional, and they become angry or confused when you ask them questions, or they deliberately lay on the BS and attack you personally instead, because they know they are ripping people off and need to divert attention. Its quite ironic that they are using a science (of manipulation, logical fallacies) to deny that science works, isn't it?
Anyway Edge, what are your impressions on other paranormal phenomena?

[Edge]

I don't believe them either.

I really do not want to speak on the spiritual issues at this time, but there are things that I have seen lately that bring me closer to God and Christ.

]

[wert]

Originally posted by Edge

I really do not want to speak on the spiritual issues at this time, but there are things that I have seen lately that bring me closer to God and Christ.

] Um... so what? We could care less about your rambling about your "closeness to god"....

Hey, maybe god or christ can give you the strength to actually answer some of my *and others* questions honestly for a change eh?


Hey, I'll make it really simple for you and ask you these questions one at a time.

Was the preliminary test you took at the JREF with Randi Fair?

Please answer with a "Yes" or a "No".

And support your answers with actual facts. We could care less whether you test was taken from a "different perspective" or whether you think Randi Sabotaged you with mysterious "electrical waves" coming through the wall.
Can you answer this one edge? Or will you lie and try to spin your way out of it as you have in the past?

Why not give us some honest answers Edge?

Otherwise, we'll go with the evidence we have.

Which pretty clearly shows that your dowsing "powers" exist only in your mind. :rolleyes:

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

[Edge]

Damn any one have a link to the the preliminary test I took at the JREF with Randi Fair?

I seemed to have lost it.

[wert]

Originally posted by Edge
Damn any one have a link to the the preliminary test I took at the JREF with Randi Fair?

I seemed to have lost it. Too bad you can't find any answers for even the simplest of questions involving your complete failure in the prelim test....


Perhaps you should check out the link edge.

You seem to have woven a fictional version of it in your mind where you failed only because of "gold ink in the Encyclopedia" or "electrical waves coming through the wall".

Your failure to give us any answers involving the test is pretty good evidence in itself that you have no concrete proof that you can succesfully dowse.

The only "successes" you can produce are delusional personal anecdotes.


Bleh.

We have plenty of solid evidence that you can't dowse as seen here:

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

And absolutely no evidence that your dowsing "powers" exist anywhere except in the feverish recesses of your mind....


Still gonna duck even the easiest of questions like this one edge?

Or are you going to keep evading and lying to us.

Was the preliminary test you took at the JREF with Randi Fair?

Please answer with a "Yes" or a "No".

And support your answers with actual facts. We could care less whether you test was taken from a "different perspective" or whether you think Randi Sabotaged you with mysterious "electrical waves" coming through the wall.

It's already pretty obvious that you can't answer this or any other fair question about your test.

You know, that test you helped create and approved of 100%. :rolleyes:

[Edge]

If he wanted to sabotage the test twenty dollars of fines sprinkled through out his offices would do the trick.

Now that you mention it yes it was no fair as it was not neutral ground.

My problem now is to find that ground, in Florida, it might not exist.

So there you go wart.
The test the way it’s set up is fine and all we have to do is agree on where.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Edge
If he wanted to sabotage the test twenty dollars of fines sprinkled through out his offices would do the trick.

No it wouldn't, or you would have detected them in the open test. You had plenty of time to test if there were anomalous readings and you agreed there were none. There was no difference in the setup or the targets in the open and hidden tests and you know this is true. This is a very lame and very belated excuse.
Originally posted by Edge
Now that you mention it yes it was no fair as it was not neutral ground.

If you had any objection to it not being "neutral ground" you should have voiced it before the test. You cannot make up conditions after the test is done. That is the mark of a cheater. But of course, you have already admitted you cheated on the open test, so I guess one more episode of cheating has no effect on your sense of honor. Assuming you have one.
Originally posted by Edge
My problem now is to find that ground, in Florida, it might not exist.

Are you telling us there is no place in Florida where you don't get a positive reading for gold? No wonder you are spectacularly unsuccessful as a dowser. But hell, we don't care if it is neutral. Pick a place that is incredibly prejudiced in your favor. I'm sure Randi will accede to that.

Originally posted by Edge
So there you go wart.
The test the way it’s set up is fine and all we have to do is agree on where.

I would bet that any place that is reasonably accessible would be fine. If Randi can't get there, he'll send somebody. Why don't you name the place and see if he agrees?

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Edge
My problem now is to find that ground, in Florida, it might not exist.



I have stayed away from posting on this thread, but I just =have= to ask: Does this mean dowsing is useless in the entire state of Florida?

NA

Now that you mention it yes it was no fair as it was not neutral ground.

My problem now is to find that ground, in Florida, it might not exist.


Edge, you seem to be forgetting what you wrote to Randi before your preliminary test. After indicating that there was too much interference at your house, you went on to say, I had to go further inland to find good clean ground. One house, my sisters was excellent, but it got sold...

Go inland, Edge, go inland!

[Edge]

It was better. My best there was 8 of !0 and an average of 5 or 6 of 10 still not perfect, not what I was use to.
Still the best, so far but, of course you'll say I'm lieing.

[Kuma]

Mr. Edge.

Long time lurker, first time poster.

Just have to ask you this...

1/ If the test was unfair, why did you proceed?

2/ If the room was tampered with so as to invalidate your results, why did your open test work so well?

3/ Why do objects that only look like gold provoke a reaction, like gold paint or brass? I guess this means you must dowse on cloudy days, or the sun (a prominent gold coloured object) would attract your dowsing rod and screw up the results.

I am eagerly awaiting your answers.

[Edge]

I'll answer this way, they the skeptics say it was fair myself playing skeptic show how it could not be fair if intended to be so.
Very easily done and invisibly.

The gold Leif on the books were in the path of what lay on the other side of the wall, magnetic fields are an attraction lucky for us.

I proceeded because I had to see what I was up against; I thought I had enough stuff to attract to over come any interferences.
Color means nothing and I always though that a book with gold Leif was painted with the real thing, I don't know everything, but seen later what was causing the attraction.

[Dragon]

Edge,

Answer Kuma's questions.
Especially #2.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Dragon
Edge,

Answer Kuma's questions.
Especially #2.
Actually, Edge already answered that question some time back. He admitted that he cheated in the open test. He admits that he used his knowledge of where the target had been placed rather than his dowsing skills. He justified this with some lame excuse like, "I didn't come all that way and not even get a shot at it".

Of course, this excuse is ridiculous. If there really were interferences, he would be an idiot to go ahead with the test, knowing that he would fail and even more of an idiot for not mentioning the interferences in advance.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Tricky

Actually, Edge already answered that question some time back. He admitted that he cheated in the open test. He admits that he used his knowledge of where the target had been placed rather than his dowsing skills. He justified this with some lame excuse like, "I didn't come all that way and not even get a shot at it".

Of course, this excuse is ridiculous. If there really were interferences, he would be an idiot to go ahead with the test, knowing that he would fail and even more of an idiot for not mentioning the interferences in advance.


Absolutely. If he'd brought up the problems ahead of time, it wouldn't have meant he "wouldn't get a shot at it", because I'm sure the JREF would have accomodated his conditions by moving the test elsewhere. He defeated himself from the very beginning.

[Dragon]

From Randi's account of the test (http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html) -
Mike also asked that several metallic objects (trophy cups, plaques, steel devices) be removed from the bookshelves nearby. At his request, a teaspoon was taken to the next room because he said that the silver could also attract his stick; that spoon was made of aluminum. But, again, we did not correct his statements. So why not ask for other objects (such as books with gold-coloured lettering) to be removed if they were a problem?
:confused: :confused:

[Kuma]

I'm impressed.

I never thought anyone could figure out a way to wiggle out of an unblinded test, a baseline as it were. Edge just showed the way.

"During the baseline test I didn't ACTUALLY use my dowsing (psychic, whatever) powers. I faked it so that I could get a shot at the real test afterwards."

Brilliant!!

I would still like an answer to number 3 of my questions. THe sun is gold coloured, and also (I believe) produces a great quantity of magnetic and electric energy. So, does the sun interfere with dowsing?

How about any gold or silver jewelry worn by a tester or judge? Or by the dowser, for that matter? Do YOU wear a silver watch or ring,Mr. Edge?

[Edge]

2/ If the room was tampered with so as to invalidate your results, why did your open test work so well?

I would see were it was placed and as I went I kept checking each spot, the basic interference stayed in certain areas and when I dowsed the spot that we all knew it was in and showing, it would pick up so there it was.

I tried to be able to tell the difference and it was difficult.
I had to keep trying as the more I tried the more I might learn, what that difference was.

When he told me there was no gold in the Leif I had to look beyond the wall.

In the field I can tell the difference between fines and chunks, but for some reason as the more I dowsed the more confusing it got.

So that's why I say go to the blind test in a clean spot and do again or dowse as fast as I can, shortest amount of time.
It's done rather quickly when mining not for, four hours, don’t know things to try?

[Kuma]

Mr. Edge;

Thank you for your answer. I am still trying to digest it, as I am not entirely familiar with some of the terms used in dowsing. I think, though, I may have an answer for your problems.

In your photo from the test page, I noticed you were wearing glasses. Do you think that there may be some silver or gold in your eyewear or frame that may cause trouble?

Do you wear a wristwatch when dowsing, and if so how do you counteract the forces of both the gold/silver in it and the magnetic force of the battery used to operate it?

Did you have any coins in your pocket? THese may produce a false reading too.

Do you wear a wedding band? Did anyone at the JREF wear jewelry? Perhaps there was a residual effect caused by the presence of silver/gold jewelry in the room in the time before the test.

I am eagerly awaiting your response. Thanks for your time, and good luck in your next test.

[HotSoup]

I have not read the whole thread ,but it seems that you support your self through dowsing for gold.
Color is important as well. How can you guaranty any accuracy? If I hide a gold color crayon and a gold nugget ,both would have the same attraction? How often do you get a false positive in the field?
Sorry if these have been answered.

[Edge]

Color doesn't matter, as silver is a different color.
I have tried silver in the end of the stick and attracted to silver and gold and it works but is a weaker attraction.
I don’t know what the heaviest element is but it would be interesting to try with it as a base line.
See I have a problem with people saying it doesn’t work when in the field it is a 99.9 probability that you’ll hit every time and make money.

I never thought about my glasses but they did have gold plating
I don't think that was it as when it pointed up it did not completely come around and stopped at the ballast in the florescent lighting, a magnetic field that was stronger, my ring was used in the tests.

The Sun? I thought about that too and we are too close the magnetic field of the Earth for it to have an affect, It seems that what I'm aiming at is generally were the attractions will come from or in that general direction.
In the field I can scan the horizon and go to the spot till it pulls straight down and it is under foot.

The test to see if there is an attraction to the sun or the moon would have to be performed in a micro gravity situation, if true it would prove dowsing once and for all and the implications would be tremendous. But of course it would be buried like many of Teslas inventions and ideas. He was the first to say that flying electrical cars were in our future.

An electrical drive system, but the types of electricity would have to be sorted out.

[Edge]

The picture above is what was found in Russia supposedly of a ancient U.F.O. crash site that was buried in a preduluvian {sp.} layer and they go on to say that the ancient people back then if there would not have the technology to create such objects.
Notice that most of it is gold.
Just a thought. Heres another one,don't know if it's true, but it was what was told to me by the locals were I had seen U.F.Os. in that part of the gold fields,when I asked a local why there were so many observeces of them and why would they show up here so much, I was told that they were mining, and people see that sort of thing all the time, just what I know and found out.

[Flatworm]

Originally posted by Edge

I would see were it was placed and as I went I kept checking each spot, the basic interference stayed in certain areas and when I dowsed the spot that we all knew it was in and showing, it would pick up so there it was.

I tried to be able to tell the difference and it was difficult.
I had to keep trying as the more I tried the more I might learn, what that difference was.

When he told me there was no gold in the Leif I had to look beyond the wall.

In the field I can tell the difference between fines and chunks, but for some reason as the more I dowsed the more confusing it got.

So that's why I say go to the blind test in a clean spot and do again or dowse as fast as I can, shortest amount of time.
It's done rather quickly when mining not for, four hours, don’t know things to try?

Unresponsive. You have not explained why the 'interference' you claimed wasn't worth mentioning (and didn't impair your functioning) in the open test but was a significant problem in the blind test.

[Flatworm]

The picture above is what was found in Russia supposedly of a ancient U.F.O. crash site that was buried in a preduluvian {sp.} layer and they go on to say that the ancient people back then if there would not have the technology to create such objects.
Notice that most of it is gold.


Which journal was this published in?

[wert]

Originally posted by Edge
The picture above is what was found in Russia supposedly of a ancient U.F.O. crash site that was buried in a preduluvian {sp.} layer and they go on to say that the ancient people back then if there would not have the technology to create such objects.
Notice that most of it is gold.
Just a thought. Heres another one,don't know if it's true, but it was what was told to me by the locals were I had seen U.F.Os. in that part of the gold fields,when I asked a local why there were so many observeces of them and why would they show up here so much, I was told that they were mining, and people see that sort of thing all the time, just what I know and found out. Hey edge, I've got quite a long post awaiting you, but I'm giving others a chance to ask you questions without wading through a mass of my posts for now.

But please, keep the post on track. The UFO nonsense has it's own thread and belongs there, as it has nothing to do with dowsing.

The nice folks here can see that you're posting off topic stuff merely to avoid clearly answering their honest questions.

What questions you ask?

Why the questions concerning your abject failure to successfully dowse under test conditions that you helped create and that you approved of 100%.

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Edge
I would see were it was placed and as I went I kept checking each spot, the basic interference stayed in certain areas and when I dowsed the spot that we all knew it was in and showing, it would pick up so there it was.
As I recall, Edge, you were the one who decided on the locations for your cups, so this excuse holds no water at all. To wit:
Mr. G. changed the location of the ten cups on the floor many times before the "open" detection trials were completed, and finally declared his total satisfaction with the placements, and with the conditions.
Originally posted by Edge
I tried to be able to tell the difference and it was difficult.
I had to keep trying as the more I tried the more I might learn, what that difference was.
This excuse also doesn't fly because you seemed to take little or no time to investigate the interference during the open test.
On the "open" tests, Mr. G. took an average of 2 1/2 minutes for each determination; on the "blind" tests, he spent an average of 8 1/2 minutes on each one.
Why did you speed through the open test if you were having problems with interference? Why didn't you ask the cups to be moved?
Originally posted by Edge
When he told me there was no gold in the Leif I had to look beyond the wall.
When you say you "looked" beyond the wall, you imply that you can focus on objects at different ranges. If this is true, why did you simply not focus the range to ignore anything beyond the wall? What is the range of your dowsing ability, anyway?

Originally posted by Edge
In the field I can tell the difference between fines and chunks, but for some reason as the more I dowsed the more confusing it got.
The "reason" for your confusion is that as you started missing your guesses, your brain started realizing that your dowsing ability doesn't work and you became uncertain of yourself. Immediately you started making excuses for your inability to dowse (and are still doing so today) ignoring the most logical "reason" of all. Dowsing doesn't work.

Originally posted by Edge
So that's why I say go to the blind test in a clean spot and do again or dowse as fast as I can, shortest amount of time.
It's done rather quickly when mining not for, four hours, don’t know things to try?
I'm sure "fast" would suit everyone, provided you didn't use that as an excuse later. However, noting your history here, I can confidently predict that you will make excuses regardless of the setup.

[Edge]

Ephesians 6:12-17 "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God."

[Dragon]

http://jeeptalk.org/crack/smilies/contrib/blackeye/lol.gif

[Quasi]

Hello Edge,

Since this thread is still going on, any new developments in your site evaluations? Anything new in your practice trials?

[Tricky]

Hi Edge. Since you have declined to include an explanation of why this is in the dowsing thread, I will take the liberty of providing one for you.

Originally posted by Edge
Ephesians 6:12-17 "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."
By "wrestle" you refer to the effort you must make to hold your dowsing rod in place when the attractive force of the gold pulls it downward. The "rulers of darkness" are of course, skeptics who can nullify your talents by sending out negative vibrations. The "spiritual wickedness in high places" are the vibrations themselves which are sent down from the upper floors of skyscrapers, where we all know wickedness resides in the form of CEOs and bank presidents.


Originally posted by Edge
Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness."
The "armour of God" is the special way you have of deflecting logic. This physical form of this armor is the special underwear that you wear, such that your "loins (are) girt about with truth".

Originally posted by Edge
Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God."
The "fiery darts of the wicked" are the questions that are fired at you by skeptics. But with the "helmet of salvation" your brain is protected from any thoughts whatsoever.

Apologies if I have misinterpreted this post, but I am sure you would never post in the dowsing thread if it had nothing to do with the topic. Right?

[CWL]

Originally posted by Edge
The picture above is what was found in Russia supposedly of a ancient U.F.O. crash site that was buried in a preduluvian {sp.} layer and they go on to say that the ancient people back then if there would not have the technology to create such objects.
Notice that most of it is gold.

We have found objects
The origin of the objects is unknown to us
Therefore, the objects must derive from an ancient U.F.O crash site

Yes, yes... that is the most likely explanation, I agree. Of course, I also believe that Santa Claus is secretly controlling the U.S. government...

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Edge
The picture above is what was found in Russia supposedly of a ancient U.F.O. crash site that was buried in a preduluvian {sp.} layer and they go on to say that the ancient people back then if there would not have the technology to create such objects.
Notice that most of it is gold.
Just a thought. Heres another one,don't know if it's true, but it was what was told to me by the locals were I had seen U.F.Os. in that part of the gold fields,when I asked a local why there were so many observeces of them and why would they show up here so much, I was told that they were mining, and people see that sort of thing all the time, just what I know and found out.

Edge, those may very well be fossils of certain invertebrates. You can't know that they're gold unless they've been assayed. We don't know who took the photo or how it's been manipulated, or if the specimens were painted to look like gold.

Nothing new or unusual, and certainly nothing from alien visitation.

[Edge]

This is the first time in about ten days that I have a working keyboard again since my old one decided to have a rum and coke.
I have been copying and pasting old documents that are relevant to the subject or as close as I can get.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Edge
This is the first time in about ten days that I have a working keyboard again since my old one decided to have a rum and coke.
I have been copying and pasting old documents that are relevant to the subject or as close as I can get.
Gotta be careful if your gonna drink and post, Edge. At least you're not on the roads.

Now, explain what that photo has to do with the topic of dowsing? This thread was started because your UFO thread was getting sidetracked with dowsing questions. Now you want to start mixing them again?

And vodka is a far superior mixer for coke than rum. Rum is for fruit drinks.

You're welcome.

[wert]

Originally posted by Tricky
[B]
Now, explain what that photo has to do with the topic of dowsing? Maybe he's gonna claim his dowsing skills were taught to him by an extraterrestrial? bleh.


Yep, It's just edge filling this thread with off topic crap in the hope that people perhaps won't notice his obvious lies and evasions regarding his failure to sucessfully dowse in a fair test setup by and approved 100% by himself... :rolleyes:


For those coming into the thread fresh, please checkout the following hard evidence of Edge's complete failure to sucessfully dowse under fair test conditions.

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

[Edge]

http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/a1999/oct/figure2.jpg

http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/a1999/oct/micro2.gif

http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/a1999/oct/figure3.jpg

The following text is from the summary report;

All tests carried out to date give an age for the objects of between 20,000 and
318,000 years, depending on the depth and the situation of the site
...analyses of the mysterious spiralswere carried out by the out-stations of the Russian
Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg and in Syktyvar (former capital of
the Komi ASSR), and also at an independent institute in Helsinki.

The report continues by describing the tests carried out, which include the use of an electrom microscope type JSM T-330 made by the Japanese firm Jeol. This also yielded data of various spectroscopic analyses

The present report, by the Central Scientific Research Institute for Geology and Prospecting for
Precious and Non-Ferrous Metals (ZNIGRI) in Moscow,...emphasises the possibility of an extraterrestrial origin.
__________________________________________________ ____________________
It's all relevant!

[Edge]

I'll be in the fields when I contact James agian nothing can change that and i'll be ready with practice.

so then we'll see.

I like some vodka drinks.

Tricky says,

By "wrestle" you refer to the effort you must make to hold your dowsing rod in place when the attractive force of the gold pulls it downward. The "rulers of darkness" are of course, skeptics who can nullify your talents by sending out negative vibrations. The "spiritual wickedness in high places" are the vibrations themselves which are sent down from the upper floors of skyscrapers, where we all know wickedness resides in the form of CEOs and bank presidents.

No that's for your soul or to open your mind up to many possibilitys.
Triky says,

Apologies if I have misinterpreted this post, but I am sure you would never post in the dowsing thread if it had nothing to do with the topic. Right?

Pretty funny though.

Much deeper than you what to think,I suppose.

We'll see at the next test though, I'll be ready.

[TechHead]

Edge, I'm coming in on this WAAYY late, 'cause I only visit here sporadically, but... what kind of dowsing device(s) do you use? I haven't waded through all the past messages, so if you've mentioned this already, my apologies.

--Carl

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Edge
2/ If the room was tampered with so as to invalidate your results, why did your open test work so well?

I would see were it was placed and as I went I kept checking each spot, the basic interference stayed in certain areas and when I dowsed the spot that we all knew it was in and showing, it would pick up so there it was.

I tried to be able to tell the difference and it was difficult.
I had to keep trying as the more I tried the more I might learn, what that difference was.

When he told me there was no gold in the Leif I had to look beyond the wall.

In the field I can tell the difference between fines and chunks, but for some reason as the more I dowsed the more confusing it got.

So that's why I say go to the blind test in a clean spot and do again or dowse as fast as I can, shortest amount of time.
It's done rather quickly when mining not for, four hours, don’t know things to try?

Why didn't you inform Randi of these problems before the closed test?

[wert]

Originally posted by dmarker


Why didn't you inform Randi of these problems before the closed test? Yep, Randi bent over backwards to make things fair for edge, allowing edge to participate in the actual setup of the test and to voice his concerns up to the very last minute.

Edge chose to indicate to Randi that he was 100% satisfied with the conditions of the test on the day he took the test.

His complete success on the "open tests" only confirmed this.

After Edge's Abject failure to dowse under these fair conditions *100% approved by Edge*, he has now chosen to lie and fill this thread with obvious exuses and evasions, claiming that the test conditions were "not fair". :rolleyes:

Just to refresh those coming into the thread, the precise details of edges failure to dowse under fair test conditions approved by himself can be found here.



http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

[Edge]

Why didn't you inform Randi of these problems before the closed test?

Even I was learning as I went.

His complete success on the "open tests" only confirmed this.

You see were it went that's easy.

I am tiring to win remember, and the reason is my own.

After failing there and never in the field it was disappointing but know after analyzing it all I have a very good idea why.

It is not that it wasn't fair Wart, but more like that the test has to be in a more scientific, or neutral area, from structure of the building and all around a dowser.
I have never had electronics all around me while dowsing for gold out in the woods, on a creek.

Two words for today >clean room<

[Pyrrho]

To eliminate any chance of electronics affecting your dowsing, Edge, your demonstration should be held in a Faraday Cage (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/FaradayCage.html).

Also:

http://www.boltlightningprotection.com/Elemental_Faraday_Cage.htm

Even "the field" is contaminated with electromagnetic radiation. You could always claim that someone's cell phone interfered with your dowsing...or even someone's electronic watch, beeper, pacemaker, flashlight batteries, what have you.

Faraday cage, it's the only way.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Edge


Even I was learning as I went.



You see were it went that's easy.

I am tiring to win remember, and the reason is my own.

After failing there and never in the field it was disappointing but know after analyzing it all I have a very good idea why.

It is not that it wasn't fair Wart, but more like that the test has to be in a more scientific, or neutral area, from structure of the building and all around a dowser.
I have never had electronics all around me while dowsing for gold out in the woods, on a creek.

Two words for today >clean room<

You couldn't speak up and say, "I'm getting energy from these spots, please remove whatever's causing them."

How do you dowse in "the field" if someone's wearing jewelry? A watch (quartz)? Has fillings in their teeth.

Personally I'd rather train a dog to find water, gold, whatever. Dogs have a much better track record with finding things than dowsers.

[MRC_Hans]

What are those pictures doing in a dowsing thread?

All this talk about "clean room" is crap. Edge, you claim to be able to dowse gold all over the landscape, even from a distance. Surely this ability cannot be nullified by a few disturbances? There must be plenty of disturbances out in the countryside too, yet you claim do be able to dowse effectively there.

After all, you are not being asked to be 100% certain, all that is demanded of you is to be significantly better than random.

Why dont you repeat the test in privacy till you feel sure whether you master it or not?

Hans

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Edge
2/ If the room was tampered with so as to invalidate your results, why did your open test work so well?

I would see were it was placed and as I went I kept checking each spot, the basic interference stayed in certain areas and when I dowsed the spot that we all knew it was in and showing, it would pick up so there it was.

I tried to be able to tell the difference and it was difficult.
I had to keep trying as the more I tried the more I might learn, what that difference was.

When he told me there was no gold in the Leif I had to look beyond the wall.

In the field I can tell the difference between fines and chunks, but for some reason as the more I dowsed the more confusing it got.

So that's why I say go to the blind test in a clean spot and do again or dowse as fast as I can, shortest amount of time.
It's done rather quickly when mining not for, four hours, don’t know things to try?


But you were dowsing for a million dollars! You only had one shot in the closed tests and you knew it. You spent time and money getting to that point. Frankly, your little "learning experience" makes no sense in that situation. Randi would have gladly removed any interferences the moment you told him before the closed test with a million bucks and the chance to be the only person to win the prize on the line, why didn't you say something before the closed test?

[Edge]

But you were dowsing for a million dollars! You only had one shot in the closed tests and you knew it. You spent time and money getting to that point. Frankly, your little "learning experience" makes no sense in that situation. Randi would have gladly removed any interferences the moment you told him before the closed test with a million bucks and the chance to be the only person to win the prize on the line, why didn't you say something before the closed test?

I never mined inside an office.
All slabs have pig wire in them.

I know what a faraday cage is as I have been in secure buildings with security passes to deliver components to the companies or to install and fix A.C. products I still can't remember if the slabs or flooring was protected as they were more worried about eavesdropping from satellites and wall penetrations.

Skepticism and realism are not the same as cynicism and pessimism......

The reasons for the pictures is to piss you off.
The above is a new one of the Arora.
It dosen't exsit but there it is .
Every day skeptics are proven wrong,including me.

An artists conception before the real picture he got it pretty close.....

[Edge]

Two more real shots.

[Edge]

One more.

[Edge]

Before I ever got those shots I knew about the contrails and what was know then about a year ago, I was lucky one day and witnessed it streaking across the sky.
It was the fastest thing I ever seen in our atmosphere or above, I have seen them all from shuttle launches to the blackbird but this was even faster.
The point is that truth is stranger than fiction.

Skepticism and realism are not the same as cynicism and pessimism......
Wart on a date.

[Edge]

Lets try this.
I had to crop this to something that looks like sheot because of size constraints on this forum if you what the original as I have it I will try to e-mail it to you.
In real life it was spectacular and I knew immediately what I was looking at.
This is just a peice of it.
gcarma@bellsouth.net

[wert]

Concerning Edge's prelim dowsing test at the JREF last march....

Originally posted by Edge

I never said it was unfair,...
Originally posted by Edge

It is not that it wasn't fair Wart,
Originally posted by Edge

Now that you mention it yes it was no fair...

And here are the conditions from Randi that you agreed to:

Originally written by Randi

Dowsers -- all of them -- just love to invoke "interferences." Sure. We always let them "check," they find that they have to move to another spot, they check it out, that's okay, and they do the test. And they fail. As you will.

And, note: if you find a spot that's "okay" but not "quite right," that won't do. You have to do the test in a spot that you declare to be 100% okay, None of this "It's not right, but I'll try it anyway" nonsense.


Hm, Randi knew exactly what excuse you'd use. And that you'd probably lie about the test afterwards.

I guess he didn't need any psychic powers to figure that one out eh? :rolleyes:

I have never had electronics all around me while dowsing for gold out in the woods, on a creek.

Hm, so your sisters house had no wiring or electricity in any way?

Edge, you seem to be forgetting what you wrote to Randi before your preliminary test. After indicating that there was too much interference at your house, you went on to say,
quote:
Originally posted by Edge
I had to go further inland to find good clean ground. One house, my sisters was excellent, but it got sold...

You can't even be consistent with your lies Edge. Why should we trust a single thing you have to say?

And we can quite clearly see that you're trying to fill the thread up with off topic UFO, contrails, airplanes, and X-ian nonsense in an attempt to cover one simple fact. That you have no actual answers for your inability to dowse under test conditions designed with your input and approved by you 100%.

Your failure *as always* is here for all to see.



http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

[Pyrrho]

Edge, we have no way of knowing if those shots are of full-size flying aircraft or of model planes. Not likely to be top-secret aircraft if they're landing in locations where they can easily be photographed...

Back to our regularly scheduled program, "Dowser's Dozen"

[Tricky]

Well, Edge, it is not too much longer until you can try again for the Randi million. You should probably get an early start and submit your application (dated to one year since the last test). That way you can work out your scheduling and stuff. Remember last time how difficult it was to agree on protocol? This way you will get your money even sooner.

I have one recommendation for you. Sell tickets. There are a number of us who would LOVE to see you dowse. I suspect this would be the only opportunity you will ever have to turn a profit by dowsing.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Edge


I never mined inside an office.


Okay, so why didn't you try it out a few times on your own in an office?

With a million dollars at stake, couldn't you take more care?

Here's some arguments from dowsers from 'Water Witching U.S.A.', by Evon Z. Vogt and Ray Hyman, University of Chicago Press, 1959.

a.) 'one good case' - all it takes is one good case to prove dowsing, yet all the 'good' cases come from either anecdotes or field tests.

b.) 'test of time' - there must be something to it if it has endured for this long. Not exactly.

c.) 'core of truth' - the evidence is piling up case after case. To which the authors reply: "If a thousand people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

d.) 'testimonial' - with no conclusive proof, no better than anecdote.

e.) 'a good thing for mankind' - Whether or not it's 'good', lets have the TRUTH, whether it's pleasant or unpleasant.

f.) 'unfair laboratory conditions' - Complaints that the bar was raised during testing, etc. Authors claim this is a hindsight argument brought up by dowsers only after learning the test results.

g.) 'unfavorable atmosphere' - Some skeptics have termed this the shyness effect. "No scientist should give their seal of approval to a phenomenon which is said to exist only in the abscence of doubt and questioning." -- authors

h.) 'accept us on own terms' - Dowsers would like scientists to put aside scientific tools and accept dowsing on non-scientific grounds. Evidence or not, believe it anyway.

i.) 'persecuted Galileo' - dowsing is either valid or it's not, regardless of what happened to Galileo, who was persecuted by clergy, not scientists.

Jeeze, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

RayG

[Pyrrho]

RayGavel: Thank you very much.

Edge, you're done. Thanks for the giggles.

Next: how to find water with a minkey and some rock salt.

[Edge]

No I'm not done, refrain from lying.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Edge
No I'm not refrain from lying.
It would help a lot if you would tell us what this is in reference to. Also, I think there was supposed to be a period in there somewhere.

But you really should not admonish others not to lie when you have done it so often yourself. You have admitted you lied when you claimed you found the targets by dowsing during the "open" test. You are caught in a situation when you must have lied when you claimed the conditions for the test were okay, then later claimed they weren't. We have many other examples of where you have been shown to contradict yourself.

Now please don't take this the wrong way. Practically everybody lies at some point in their life. There are various reasons, some better than others. The point is not that you lied, it is that you were caught red-handed and yet still refuse to admit it. I have seen children do this, but it is rare in adults. That is the sad part.

[wert]

Originally posted by Edge
No I'm not done, refrain from lying. Nah, we'll leave the lying to you Edge. You haven't shown us that you can sucessfully dowse under test conditions setup and approved 100% by yourself.

But you have shown us that you do have quite a talent for prevarication about the test...




http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

[Mossy]

Originally posted by Tricky



And vodka is a far superior mixer for coke than rum. Rum is for fruit drinks.

You're welcome.

Tricky, I realize this is very late, but please allow me to respectfully say:

YOU GO TO HELL! YOU GO TO HELL AND YOU DIE!

Blasphemer! Vodka is better for coke than RUM?! What frickin' planet do you live on?!

Jesus. Sometimes you just really piss me off.

-Ed

[CWL]

Originally posted by Mossy


Tricky, I realize this is very late, but please allow me to respectfully say:

YOU GO TO HELL! YOU GO TO HELL AND YOU DIE!

Blasphemer! Vodka is better for coke than RUM?! What frickin' planet do you live on?!

Jesus. Sometimes you just really piss me off.

-Ed

If you ask me you are both damned. Mixing any liquor with coke is a nothing short of a blasphemy.

[Mossy]

Originally posted by CWL


If you ask me you are both damned. Mixing any liquor with coke is a nothing short of a blasphemy.

I'm turning a blind ear, no - a deaf eye? Anyway, I'm turning an impaired sensory organ to this kind of wanton anarchy.

Drink your coke plain. I swear, sometimes it is like you people want to go to hell!

-Ed

[CWL]

Originally posted by Mossy


I'm turning a blind ear, no - a deaf eye? Anyway, I'm turning an impaired sensory organ to this kind of wanton anarchy.

Drink your coke plain. I swear, sometimes it is like you people want to go to hell!

-Ed

Keep your organs to yourself sir.

Coke is to be drank without any additives and only when hungover. Full stop.

You want to mix? Mix gin with tonic. Anything else will surely have you dispatched to a place more temperate than you would ever wish for.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Mossy


Tricky, I realize this is very late, but please allow me to respectfully say:

YOU GO TO HELL! YOU GO TO HELL AND YOU DIE!

Blasphemer! Vodka is better for coke than RUM?! What frickin' planet do you live on?!

Jesus. Sometimes you just really piss me off.

-Ed
It depends on whether or not you like Coke. If you like the taste of coke, then vodka is better. If you don't, then cover it up with some rum. Of course rum is superior to something truly bad like bourbon. I have a friend who drinks scotch and Coke. He's the one who is going to hell.

(BTW, don't you have to die before you go to hell?)

[Mossy]

Originally posted by Tricky

It depends on whether or not you like Coke. If you like the taste of coke, then vodka is better. If you don't, then cover it up with some rum. Of course rum is superior to something truly bad like bourbon. I have a friend who drinks scotch and Coke. He's the one who is going to hell.

There really is just no talking to you people. Have you never, in your God-forsaken lives been exposed to a Cuba Libre (Bacardi, of course, not just any ol' rum)??? Find, I wash my hands of this!

(BTW, don't you have to die before you go to hell?)

(Sorry, South Park reference - couldn't help myself, I was overcome with the spirit)

-Ed

[CWL]

Originally posted by Mossy

There really is just no talking to you people. Have you never, in your God-forsaken lives been exposed to a Cuba Libre

Yah! When I was like 17, dude!

Guess some of us have become slightly more sophisticated with age (and that some of us have not).

[Mossy]

Originally posted by CWL


Yah! When I was like 17, dude!

Guess some of us have become slightly more sophisticated with age (and that some of us have not).

Sophistication at what cost?! Taste?! No thank you - I prefer my lack of sophistication to taste good.

(and you're still going to hell)

[CWL]

Originally posted by Mossy


Sophistication at what cost?! Taste?! No thank you - I prefer my lack of sophistication to taste good.

Sophistication is taste my young friend. Some day you may understand that.

(and you're still going to hell)

That's fine. At least in my hell we will be drinking beverages for adults. Do you really want to spend eternity drinking Cuba Libres and Pina Colada?

Repent! Repent! For if you do not, the Ragnarok of Sickly-Sweet Cocktails will be upon us!

[wert]

Did anyone else think about Edge when they read this dowsing piece in one of the recent commentaries from Randi?


I remember vividly a conversation with Charlie in which one of our group, reluctant to let go of the idea of supernatural powers, mentioned that it was important to remain open-minded. "To be sure," said Charlie, "but a truly open mind has to be open to the possibility that a radical idea, however exciting, may prove to be a load of codswallop!" Too bad Edge is too stubborn to realize that he can't actually do what he claims to do. :rolleyes:

To return to my original theme; the point is that while none of us were deliberately or consciously cheating, we were making it all happen in accord with what we already knew, or with guesses based on the reactions of our friends. As opposed to Edge, who doesn't cheat per se, but who does lie about a test that he helped set up and approved of 100%.

Only to fail miserably in the end. :)

As always, details of his failure are right here.

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html



So I am quite prepared to believe that on some occasions, a person with a good underpinning knowledge of how local topography links to underlying archaeology, perhaps also a pre-existing familiarity with the site, can locate materials with a rod or pendulum. They are merely using these tools, consciously or unconsciously, to give voice to shrewd guesses.
Quite relevant to Edge's mining claims I think.

If you do find some gold edge, how would you know it wasn't a result of luck or preexisting knowledge? Why would you assume it's due to your your dowsing "powers".

Kind of a moot point anyways, since you've never shown us any actual proof of all the gold you've found. :)


And tell us.

Have you contacted Randi and the JREF to set up your second prelim test in march?

You've claimed you have a "secret weapon" that will allow you to win the million this time.

We await your second test with great amusement.... :)

[pupdog]

Indeed, some dowsing believers believe with a religious zeal, based on faith, not evidence. Some claim a scientific basis:

"There's nothing scientific about breaking off a willow branch and walking over the ground with it looking for a stream of water underground. It's hit or miss... If I was going to sink a well, I wouldn't try to divine water with a piece of willow limb. I'd roll high-dice for it before I'd make a fool out of myself doing that."
"You just haven't got a scientific mind, Will."
E Caldwell, "God's Little Acre"

Pupdog: Water is my field and I've encountered a number of dowsers in my time. What I've noticed is that they have some very peculiar ideas about the underground world. Without exception (in my experience) they are completely clueless about the reality and carry round a vision of the "waters beneath" that is borrowed directly from their experience of the waters above, i.e. discrete and identifiable channels, even lakes and ponds. Given this picture it does make some sort of sense (to them) to claim that you have to locate water.

The reality is totally different - water percolates through interstices and pores within the rocks and to a reasonable approximation you might say that underground water is everywhere. That's not to say that there aren't better and poorer places to locate wells according to topography and strata. (Some limestone formations do have real streams - in reality just very large solution pores).

Actually this model of the underworld was the received wisdom right up to the enlightenment and beyond. Springs were a great mystery and were regularly debated in the early years of the Royal Society (of London). Their problem was not to entertain any theory which disallowed Noah's flood. Basically they had to imagine vast caverns beneath the mountains which communicated with the oceans, and a process of condensation explained how freshwater was lifted to the underside of the tops of the caverns which then dripped out via springs.

So dowsers are really just the last refuge of folk with a mediaevel mindset.

[TechHead]

Good summary of dowsers' beliefs, maxberan. Here on the east coast (NC), it's damn near impossible to drill a dry well. Dowsers are especially successful here.

Two questions, if hydrology is your field. How widespread is the use of dowsing amongst well drillers? Also, how difficult is it to locate water in arid regions of the US? I'm told that dowsers in So. Cal. are particularly successful, where non-dowsers are not.

[pupdog]

A few drillers in my area (MD-PA) are believers, some are just willing to go through the motions if the customer wants dowsing. But LOTS of people have employed dowsers here, even town water departments! We're East Coast, but this includes the crystalline rocks of the Piedmont, & some lots have had more than 20 dry holes. Well yields are very spotty; I've seen a complaint that a customer wouln't pay the driller because the driller had to move 6 inches away from the spot the dowser had picked.

The local papers occasionally print articles about local dowsers, but, as usual, without a trace of skepticism.

[Quasi]

I always thought it would be fun to not only test a dowser, but also have an amateur metal detector fan also run through the test independantly. What it would show is the dowser equal to chance, and the metal detector close to 100%. Why bother with a stick, when an "alternative dowsing" is available.

Techhead asks:
Two questions, if hydrology is your field. How widespread is the use of dowsing amongst well drillers? Also, how difficult is it to locate water in arid regions of the US? I'm told that dowsers in So. Cal. are particularly successful, where non-dowsers are not.


In the UK the water supply industry is largely in the hands of large companies with regional responsibilities and who employ professional hydrogeologists either directly or via consultants. For historic and geographic reasons there is not a large body of small-time drillers working directly to landowners or individual municipalities who I would expect to be more credulous. Nevertheless I would not be surprised if more than a quarter would not dismiss dowsing. I worked for a research establishment before retiring and probably half of my scientific colleagues professed belief in a God. I always thought they must have something wrong with their wiring, but there you go.

As for the US, I suggest the USGS' website as a first port of call. From observations of backdrops of cowboy films (which is the sum total of my knowledge of So Cal) there does seem to be a lot of surface topographic detail and the sort of semi-arid environment which allows the surface geology to be readily seen (as well as being in black and white) both of which would be very helpful to anyone trying to locate a good site for a borehole.

Pupdog mentioned crystalline rocks - these would certainly be a lot harder to find water in as (a) more of the rainfall runs off instead of percolating, and (b) it is only large fissures such as fracture zones around faults which are capable of providing a useful supply. Also the vegetation being lusher, you have fewer surface clues as to the underlying geology.

[Pyrrho]

It would be interesting to know if dowsers are more plentiful in arid regions or in wet regions, regardless of their success rate.

Also, I wonder if people are more likely to rely upon dowsers or geologists in arid regions vs. wet regions.

Basically, a market analysis. Where is the demand greatest? Where water is hard to find, or where water is easy to find?

[TechHead]

Ray Hyman might know. In "Water Witching, USA" (Vogt & Hyman) they talk about a large survey of well drillers they did, although I don't recall that they broke it down by regions. Also, the survey was done in the 1950's, so it's surely time for updated data! This would be an excellent thesis for some psychology grad student.


It would be interesting to know if dowsers are more plentiful in arid regions or in wet regions, regardless of their success rate.

Also, I wonder if people are more likely to rely upon dowsers or geologists in arid regions vs. wet regions.

Basically, a market analysis. Where is the demand greatest? Where water is hard to find, or where water is easy to find?

[Edge]

I always thought it would be fun to not only test a dowser, but also have an amateur metal detector fan also run through the test independantly. What it would show is the dowser equal to chance, and the metal detector close to 100%. Why bother with a stick, when an "alternative dowsing" is available

Metal detectors are limited in depth but it is a handy tool to have and use with all the knowledge to make money at mining easier and more confirmation is best.

I think the limits were a few feet of overburden but with new technology it could be more.

I have gone as far as Fort Pierce Lately and the next time I will look for a neutral ground there and as far south as sixty miles from here.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Edge


Metal detectors are limited in depth but it is a handy tool to have and use with all the knowledge to make money at mining easier and more confirmation is best.

I think the limits were a few feet of overburden but with new technology it could be more.
What are the depth limits for dowsing? Is there a weakening of the signal with distance?


I have gone as far as Fort Pierce Lately and the next time I will look for a neutral ground there and as far south as sixty miles from here.
I was wondering where you have been. Have you struck the mother lode yet?

Originally posted by Tricky

What are the depth limits for dowsing? Is there a weakening of the signal with distance?

There are no limits - depth or otherwise - for credulousness.

[Edge]

Tricky I have moved and was held up in time as the house I moved into wasn't ready till aboiut a week ago.
I'm glad that it's done I hate moving.

The next move I do will be to the west coast of Calli.; I hope.

I will tell you a story about a detector and a dowser later tonite.

[robbersdog]

Hooray! So you finally admit that you're just telling stories!

This whole thread reminds me of playing cowboys and indians as a child.

'Bang! You're dead, I shot you'

'No I'm not, you missed'

Lots more waving of plastic guns and many tears shed in the ensuing argument.

The only difference is that there is no way of proving if you were or were not on target in your imaginary world. I get the feeling edge is very happy discussing things in his own imaginary world. However, it is VERY provable in the real world. I question wether anything more can/should be said to edge? If you feel you have to have the last word and that by letting edge have the last post in this thread that you are in some way losing, I'd have to ask why. If edge wants to discuss this properly then he needs to show us there is something to discuss. Surely any other posts of his are irrelevent.

He knows how to go about the million dollar challenge so he has no reason to discuss that here.

The requirements for it have been done to death, he could not possibly need to know any more than he does.

We don't need to know why he failed last time, that also is irrelevent.

All that matters at the moment is his success for it is only after that that he will have a leg to stand on.

Any further stories/excuses/explainations are completely irrelevent. Why does anyone feel the need to credit them with a response?

[Edge]

I asked Tim the guy that taught me how to dowse to come down to our part of the creek to show us his stuff, as we were not doing well at all.
He did and said if I put in a certain spot that I would hit a once or more every day till the end of dredging season, which was about two months away.
Then he told the other guy Dave to stay where he was at that he would hit a big pocket and that after he was done it would run out and he would have to go else where as the property line was in front of him and the fact that he couldn't jump directly in front of me, he was dead in his chose of spots unless he got behind me and it was clean there so there was no point in doing that.

Dave brought down his metal detector and doubled checked the spot and it went off big time.
The overburden there was only about 2 to 3 feet and the bottom was that hard conglomerate that's black in color.

The spot or area that I was in had varying depths and thickness of over burden where his detector really couldn't tell us any thing but yet the dowser, Tim knew, and that impressed me so that was the winter that I had him teach me how to dowse for GOLD.
Dave hit a 9 once pocket and I was a little jealous.

Then he pulled out and I was alone during that next two months on that part of the creek. I pulled about a pound and a half and got two quarter once nuggets and a half once nugget.
True

[Tricky]

Let me get this straight. The guy with the metal detector found the most gold in the shortest time, and this somehow proves dowsing? :rolleyes:

How much cash did you net for this two-months work?

[robbersdog]

Just a story. I have lots of those too. Irrelevent.

Edge, what are you hoping to achieve by continuing with this? Haven't you figured out yet that stories aren't going to win us over?

There is one way, and one way only that you could ever win us over and that's to walk away with Randi's Million. You say you can dowse and that it's an aquired skill. Well, I'm a sailor. I have an ability to read the wind which is above that of the average person. A lot of people are surprised by the extent to which you can read the wind, but it's just a skill that can be learned. I've been doing it for some 20 years now and am still learning more each time I sail. Now, if Randi told me I could win a million dollars for demonstrating my ability to read the wind there is no way I could turn it down. It's just something I do all the time anyway. There would be no meeting too important to miss or anything silly like that (this is a million dollars, a life changing amount of money). There would be no animosity on my part, if someone said they thought I couldn't do it, I'd just shrug my shoulders and get on with it. I'd PROVE them wrong, take the million and leave no-one in any doubt! A genuine person with a real ability would have NO REASON to turn down the challenge.

You say you go dowsing for gold. Why do people dowse for gold? Because it's worth cash. You were jealous when your friend found a big haul of gold. Therefore, the more gold you find, and hence the more money, the better.

RANDI IS OFFERING YOU ONE MILLION DOLLARS! You just won't find that much gold. There are simply no downsides to taking the challenge if you are genuine. None whatsoever.

You cannot dowse. Nothing you say on this forum can possibly ever prove that wrong/right. Similarly, nothing I can say could prove anything either. There is only one way to prove anything, and you know it. Stop lying and prove it.

[wert]

Originally posted by robbersdog
Just a story. I have lots of those too. Irrelevent.

Edge, what are you hoping to achieve by continuing with this? Haven't you figured out yet that stories aren't going to win us over?
Ya See Edge?

Even people new to the thread see right through your attempts to convince us through worthless personal anecdotes.

And we've shown you direct proof that you've lied to us here.

Why should anyone take your personal anecdotes as evidence of any kind?

Having demonstrated without a doubt that you'll lie and make up stories about your "powers" it's a bit surprising that you'd persist in foisting them on us....

You know, March is right around the corner.

Have you contacted Randi yet about your second try at the million dollar challenge?

And if you haven't done so by now, why not?

written by Edge

I have gone as far as Fort Pierce Lately and the next time I will look for a neutral ground there and as far south as sixty miles from here.Hey, you said your sisters house worked quite well for dowsing. Why not just go there.

Or

Just go where you dowsed when you tested the items that you said you can find 100% of the time during your prelim test. (The sacajawea dollars, etc...

We're all quite anxious to here about your "secret weapon" that you claim will net you the million this time.

And we're also quite curious to know the status of your prelim talks with Randi for your re-test.

Please don't bore us with unverifiable *and quite useless* personal anecdotes.

We want to know why you failed completely at a dowsing test that you helped personally design and that you approved of 100%.

Details of Edge's abject failure to dowse under fair test conditions are right here for those new to the thread.

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

[Edge]

God you guys are dense.

Let me get this straight. The guy with the metal detector found the most gold in the shortest time, and this somehow proves dowsing?

Then he told the other guy Dave to stay where he was at, that he would hit a big pocket and after that he would be done, it would run out, and he would have to go else where as the property line was in front of him and the fact that he couldn't jump directly in front of me, he was dead in his chose of spots unless he got behind me and it was clean there so there was no point in doing that.

Mike said,That's me,
"He did and said if I put in a certain spot that I would hit a once or more every day till the end of dredging season, which was about two months away."

60+ ounces!!!! Verses 9 ounces?

Still can't figure it out?

His advice was correct in both situations Duh hu.

This is one of those nuggets on my ring.

[robbersdog]

Ok, I think this thread has pretty well been killed by edge, so I'm going to take a slight liberty here and ask that no-one else posts till he has replied to this post. I don't want to give edge any excuses to not answer a question. If asked two questions at once, he seems to dither between the two, without answering either.

I'm going to keep this really simple. A complicated question will almost always need a complicated answer, so edge could feel he has answered it, while to the rest of us it only leads to frustration. The following threads then lose the original point of the question, so I propose we keep questions to the yes/no kind, or at least to simple questions with short answers. If edge really believes what he can do, then this won't be a problem. If he doesn't believe his own stories, and has something to hide, he will make an excuse and not answer the question. There you go edge, that is the challenge. By not posting an answer or by posting an excuse, we can only assume you are a liar. Remember, this is a skeptics forum, and YOU are the one with the case to prove, not us.

Question: You have been trying to win us over by telling us stories from your past. While you may know them to be true, do you understand that since there is no way for us to check the facts, they are useless as proof of dowsing? Just to clarify, the yes/no question is 'do you understand why we can't accept stories as proof'?

[Edge]

Ok I can understand that, yes to a point.
But use some logic here, How many people do you know have raw gold or nuggets out of the river in their possession?
You could buy them.

Dave never hit again the rest of the season with his metal detector.
You know why?
Because it was very limited in it's ability.
It's still a useful tool to check with though.
The detector cannot scan the horizon and get direction.

The next time I go I will document every thing from myself leaving Fl. to Ca.

There is one spot there that I jumped over; it's virgin ground, which can be proved to be so.
If it's still there I will get a reading.
It was deep and hard to get to the bottom but in the path of the ancient line of gold that I was following.
At the time it was easier to skip it and get to the easier stuff, but knowing now and looking back I always regretted that decision.

I am thinking about doing the test again but in a more favorable spot, if I can find that here or anywhere.

I only know that it works in the gold fields, there could be a lot of false positives there as well when doing the test, I still am not sure why that is and like you am always learning.

[pupdog]

Yet another story:

The water manager of the next town over from me was showing off their new high-yield well to my buddy, a hydrologist. He was mighty proud of it, and praised the dowser who picked the spot.
"What's that pile of cuttings over there?...and over there...and more over there...etc.?" my buddy asked, "did you do some test drilling?"
"No," replied the water manager, "the first couple of spots the dowser picked were dry, but when he found a spot with water, there was water there!"

[Edge]

Show us a picture of the well.
By the way I don't dowse for water I just pray for rain.......
Make sure you have an anchor stone.

[Tricky]

Now that Edge has answered those questions, I would like him to return to one I asked earlier.

How much money did you make, Edge? Was it enought to cover your expenses? What do you figure was your hourly rate?

If you found 60 ounces, as you suggest, then at current prices, you grossed about $21,000. Not bad at all for two months work. You should be quite wealthy if you can continue this performance, and, of course, if this is true.

Of course, like all your stories, we only have your word for it.

[Edge]

Back then Tricky it was about 350 an once but nugget value was time and a half so it was closer to 35 not counting what went on before that and after.

When you get to quarter once chunks and half once pieces it jumps even more.


The vial also has some platinum, back then it was 500 dollars an once ,or 20 penny weight to an once.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Edge
Back then Tricky it was about 350 an once but nugget value was time and a half so it was closer to 35 not counting what went on before that and after.

When you get to quarter once chunks and half once pieces it jumps even more.


The vial also has some platinum, back then it was 500 dollars an once ,or 20 penny weight to an once.
So how much money did you clear?

[Edge]

it was closer to 35 not counting what went on before that and after.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Edge
it was closer to 35 not counting what went on before that and after.
$35? $35,000? 35 ounces?

What I was asking was how much money you made (gross and net) off of the gold you found.

Before what and after what? In the last two months, how much money have you put in the bank as a result of dowsing? It's an easy question. Ballpark figures will be fine.

[Edge]

Back then Tricky it was about 350 an once but nugget value was time and a half so it was closer to $35,000 not counting what went on before that and after.
I thought you would understand what i wrote.
The rest is personal.
That was just those two months.
I haven't mined for 8 years but hope to do so soon.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Edge
Back then Tricky it was about 350 an once but nugget value was time and a half so it was closer to $35,000 not counting what went on before that and after.
I thought you would understand what i wrote.
The rest is personal.
That was just those two months.
I haven't mined for 8 years but hope to do so soon.
By my calculations, that works out to an annual take of $210,000. That is a significant sum, even if it is gross. If mining is so extremely profitable, I cannot fathom why you would not be doing it full time. Not trying to get personal, but there must be a pretty powerful reason to take an 8-year hiatus from such a profitable enterprise.

[davefoc]

Edge,

Why do you think that you have reached a different conclusion concerning the viability of dowsing as a technique for finding hidden metal from most of the people who have posted to this thread? I think that it might be one these reasons:

1. You think the skeptics have not seen the same demonstrations and don't have the same information as you. If they did they would understand that dowsing can be used to detect hidden metal.

2. You think the skeptics wouldn't agree with you even if they had seen the same demonstrations and had the same information as you because their powers of analysis are not as good as yours in this area.

3. You think the skeptics don't agree with you because the biases the skeptics bring to this issue preclude them from discerning the truth.


I was also curious if you had any thoughts about a possible mechanism that would explain how dowsing works. Do you believe that there is a natural explanation here? Some force or physical phenomena unknown to science or is it your thought that the mechanism is supernatural?

[Edge]

First thing dredging season only lasts from June 10 to September 30 as I recall that means machinery.
The rest of the year is by hand or hard rock mining into the mountain.

davefoc Said,
1. You think the skeptics have not seen the same demonstrations and don't have the same information as you. If they did they would understand that dowsing can be used to detect hidden metal.

My demonstrations and knowledge comes from success, not only mine but also I have seen the successes that my teacher has had, along with him working for the government with great success.

I could almost believe the Idomotor effect except the success of finding gold and for the simple fact that I can stop the reaction of the movement only for a moment, temporarily and at that point it keeps going at the part of the stick where I'm not grasping and it then continues to arch.
It will not stop till you let go.
One of the places that I tested at was my sisters’ house remember? There I had better success practicing for the Jref test.
I found something there that was interfering through the wall on the other side of the house.
First I must say that my sister and my X-brothren law had both moved out and I had permission to check and practice there. On the side of the house was a pile of stuff that my sister and her x didn't want I kept getting a pull and went over to that side and found five silver plated dinner trays I'll show you a picture of them soon. The interference was less the next time I went there to prepare for the test.




[QUOTE]2. You think the skeptics wouldn't agree with you even if they had seen the same demonstrations and had the same information as you because their powers of analysis are not as good as yours in this area.

I think if they went with me to the creek and mined they would change their minds one at a time.
No these guys and gals have good reasoning skills, but this thing like gravity is hard to figure out completely and even I am still learning.
I am the optimistic pessimist and it’s late here I will post a picture of one of the trays that I cleaned and polished and one that I haven’t.
These were buried under the sand and had grass growing over them, it was hard to spot but I knew something was there and I had to look hard to find them all they were basically stacked in one spot.
I’ll finish this tomorrow.

[Edge]

This one is what they looked like before polishing

[Pyrrho]

Is this Antiques Roadshow? :D

Seriously, Edge, if those trays are antiques you shouldn't be cleaning and polishing them. Have them appraised first.

[robbersdog]

More stories. Waste of time. Take the test (AGAIN). Do you think you will convince us on this board by telling stories?

Answer my question and please don't tell any more stories. If you are incapable of answering one simple question, I will have to assume terminal stupidity. Sound stupid? Prove me wrong and answer my question.

I bet you don't. (Can I make this a formal prediction, that edge will not answer my question in a clear and unambiguous manner? Would I qualify for the million for being psychic?) :D

The noose is around your neck edge, all that remains is for you to kick the stool away with your next post. :p

[edthedoc]

More evidence of the link between lack of punctuation/capital letters and self-delusional paranormal beliefs. I ought to write a paper about it one day.

Edge, you're convincing no-one but yourself, and (IMHO) the only reason why this thread is popular is because people like reading about self-deluded paranormal believers, not because anyone thinks dowsing works.

[wert]

Hey Edge.

It's nearly March.

You know what that means.

You can take the prelim test with the JREF again and handily win that Million Bucks with your dowsing "skills".

Now, you've said you have a "secret weapon" and we're very anxious to see you use it to take the million.

You keep giving us anecdotal accounts that don't mean a darn thing in terms of actually proving your case.

Only passing the prelim test at the JREF will do that. Until you do, your credibility is non-existent. Personal anecdotes won't do.

Now, you've gone on and on about how you can't find a place that is "free of interferences".

Interestingly enough, you've claimed your sisters old house was good for dowsing whilst simultaneously saying that you can't get good results indoors.

Of course, you did claim that you could dowse man made objects on a consistent basis.

In fact, you presented Randi with the following objects that you claimed you could find every time.

http://www.randi.org/images/032902-G2.jpg

Now if you "self tested" and could find these every time, why not use the same location that worked for you before? Your sisters house perhaps?

But no, I doubt you will. Instead, you'll continue to regale us with completely useless *from an actual evidential standpoint* personal anecdotes.

So why not tell us why you haven't contacted Randi about your next test yet?

And if you have contacted him, perhaps you could give us the details of that eh?

For those coming in late, here's what happened the last time Edge *aka Mike Guska* took the prelim test at the JREF with Randi. Edge helped set up the test and approved of its conditions 100%

He failed miserably.

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

[edthedoc]

Edge, go dowse for landmines.

[robbersdog]

Nice idea, but unfortunately I doubt if edge would manage to find any:D

edge has given up, not that I blame him. I would too if I were a lying attention seeker.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by robbersdog
Nice idea, but unfortunately I doubt if edge would manage to find any:D

edge has given up, not that I blame him. I would too if I were a lying attention seeker.

He could find one, heh heh.

But seriously, I want to take the dowsing test too. Instead of a stick, I'm using a beagle. And we're dowsing for dog treats.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by dmarker


He could find one, heh heh.

But seriously, I want to take the dowsing test too. Instead of a stick, I'm using a beagle. And we're dowsing for dog treats.
You realize that if you were to take the Randi Challenge, he would force you to cover the beagle's nose when dowsing for dog treats. Sorry. No $million for you.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Tricky

You realize that if you were to take the Randi Challenge, he would force you to cover the beagle's nose when dowsing for dog treats. Sorry. No $million for you.

Darn it! I knew that there was a catch.

But really, who needs dowsing when you have a good tracking dog?

[Dogwood]

hmmmmn,

Police dogs have been trained to detect minute amounts of illegal drugs and explosive materials. I wonder if they could be trained to sniff for gold?

[TechHead]

Originally posted by mark tidwell
hmmmmn,

Police dogs have been trained to detect minute amounts of illegal drugs and explosive materials. I wonder if they could be trained to sniff for gold?

Some dogs have been known to sniff out paper money. If a dowser brought his dog along on a test, I wonder if Randi would notice a him pointing out the target? :) Maybe the dowser could train the dog to indicate the target location, in a very subtle way.

[wert]

Edge my friend.

It's been three weeks.

I know you're out there making tons of money with your mining, but we're all anxious to know....


How are negotioations going with Randi for your next dowsing test with the JREF?

March is almost here and you'll be eligible to try again.

Please let us know how the talks are going and if not, please tell us why you're not talking with Randi to set up a second test.

Is there any reason to believe the results won't be as they were the first time?

You know? When you failed miserably at a test you approved 100% and helped design yourself.

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

[dmarker]

Originally posted by mark tidwell
hmmmmn,

Police dogs have been trained to detect minute amounts of illegal drugs and explosive materials. I wonder if they could be trained to sniff for gold?

On one of the better Animal Planet shows, they had a golden retreiver who could smell veins of emerald. In a week, the dog was working the mines, scenting out bits of emerald.

So an experiment is in order, training a tracking dog to find gold and then doing a blind test where the handler, observers, et don't know where the gold is. If the dog find it, then replicate with another dog.

[Edge]

When I'm ready I'll let you know.

[Edge]

My coat of arms.

[Thumbo]

Originally posted by Edge
My coat of arms.
St George dowsing for dragons?

[Edge]

That;s right Ugly....

[wert]

Originally posted by Edge
When I'm ready I'll let you know. Ok, here's a real simple "yes" or "no" question for you.


Have you contacted Randi or the JREF about your re-test?

Yes or No please.

And if the answer is no, please give us a good explanation why you haven't done so yet.

You become eligible for the re-test in a few weeks and one would think you would be anxious to win the million.

You do have that "secret weapon" and all. :)


I'm guessing you'll put it off and give us weak excuses in an attempt to save yourself from the abject failure of your first test.

You've already said that your sisters old house was good for dowsing.

You've also claimed that you can sucessfully dowse the objects you brought to Randi in the first test.

So I'm figuring that finding a location shouldn't be tough for your re-test as you obviously could just go where you initially tested the objects that you claim you "can find everytime".

*Patiently awaiting the lame excuses you'll come up with to explain why you probably haven't even contacted Randi or the JREF yet. :) *

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

[Edge]

Hey ass clown, Wart, let me say this again!
When I'm ready I'll let you know.

I'm going to Ft. Pearce in a day or two and if I find the neutral ground down there that I'm looking for it will then be on, real soon. Du hu !


Grave marker for Randi’s Million below.

[Tesserat]

Hi Edge

Have you ever tried to use a material to block extranious signals?
For instance, lay down a sheet of thin lead, and see if it blocks dowsing signals from below. If that works, see if you can dowse materials that are lain on top.

Other blocking methods to try:

chicken wire
chicken wire with a battery connected
Chickens (just kidding)
Thin sheets of stainless steel (non magnetic)
Duct Tape (well, it fixes all MY problems)
leaded glass

lay down a whole bunch of rebar in parallel lines, east-west. Hook a nine volt battery to each one, negative side east, positive side west. Lay 1/2 inch plywood on top. That should work.

[Edge]

LEAD NOW THERE'S A THOUGHT.
THE WIRE IS LIKE WHAT'S IN CONCREAT SLABS, NOT GOOD.

IF THE DAMN THING WOUDN'T ARCH I’D SAY DOSN'T WORK, AND IF A PERSON IS NEVER ACCURATE OTHER THAN A GIGANTIC LOAD SIMALAR TO THE AMOUNTS THE SPANISH LOST OR IN THE ACCUAL GOLD FIELDS.

THEN I WOULD SAY DOSEN'T WORK.

BUT IT'S A MATTER OF NEUTRAL GROUND I BELIEVE IN PLACES LIKE FLORIDA EXCEPT THE OCEAN AREAS.

What if it's more like lets say proof of Z.P.E.?

Then we were stupid for not looking at it because of what?
Maybe?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Edge
LEAD NOW THERE'S A THOUGHT.
THE WIRE IS LIKE WHAT'S IN CONCREAT SLABS, NOT GOOD.

IF THE DAMN THING WOUDN'T ARCH I’D SAY DOSN'T WORK, AND IF A PERSON IS NEVER ACCURATE OTHER THAN A GIGANTIC LOAD SIMALAR TO THE AMOUNTS THE SPANISH LOST OR IN THE ACCUAL GOLD FIELDS.

THEN I WOULD SAY DOSEN'T WORK.

BUT IT'S A MATTER OF NEUTRAL GROUND I BELIEVE IN PLACES LIKE FLORIDA EXCEPT THE OCEAN AREAS.

What if it's more like lets say proof of Z.P.E.?

Then we were stupid for not looking at it because of what?
Maybe?
Edge, I thought you had learned not to post when you have been drinking rum and coke. You shouldn't shout (all caps) and you should know how to spell "concrete", being a construction worker from time to time.

As for neutral ground, you must have found some places where your dowsing rod has no reactions. That's all it takes. Just a few square feet with no dowsing reactions whatsoever. In that small area, you can be sure that any signals you get will be from the "targets". If you really can't find such a spot, then either:

A) You are finding gold everywhere you look.
or
B) Interference is causing false readings everywhere you look and you so you never find any gold by dowsing.
or
C) Dowsing doesn't work and when you find gold it is just by your knowledge of gold deposits and where they are likely to occur.

Now go to bed and when you wake up, see if you can tell us why you can't seem to find any ground with no dowsing response. I recommend you drink at least a quart of water before you go to sleep. It will help prevent hangovers.

[davefoc]

Like a moth to the flame I post again.

1. OK, what's ZPE?

2. Wow, does drinking water really work Tricky? I'm sort of a wimpy drinker but every year or so that could come in handy. Have you done any personal research on this technique?

3. I'd like to think edge was pretty well blasted when he wrote the last post. It seemed a little less lucid than normal for an edge post. Perhaps edge could help us out here with a blood alcohol percentage estimate with each of his posts so we could put them in perspective.

[Psiload]

Originally posted by davefoc
Like a moth to the flame I post again.
1. OK, what's ZPE?

2. Wow, does drinking water really work Tricky? I'm sort of a wimpy drinker but every year or so that could come in handy. Have you done any personal research on this technique?

3. I'd like to think edge was pretty well blasted when he wrote the last post. It seemed a little less lucid than normal for an edge post. Perhaps edge could help us out here with a blood alcohol percentage estimate with each of his posts so we could put them in perspective.

1- I believe the ZPE Edge is referring to is Zero Point Energy, although in the state Edge was apparently in during his last post, he may have been reading the brand name off the jug of cheap wine he recently bulk purchased from his local warehouse club.

Zero Point Energy is the recent darling theory of those intrepid "fringe" scientists and researchers who have grown frustrated that their perpetual motion machines aren't, and have switched to a newer, sexier pull-energy-out-of-your-ass scheme. They believe that boundless, unlimited amounts of energy are lurking somewhere(and everywhere) in the vacuum of space. They believe this energy, which they describe as "the ultimate quantum free lunch" is just sitting out there(and over there, and there, and there's some, and oh yeah, right there too) ripe for the plucking. Pretty ironic, huh?... given what the ol' yarn about free lunches tells us. However, these researchers soldier on undaunted, convinced that it's just a matter of filling enough blackboards with mind numbing mathematical calculations, and building the appropriate number of very-expensive-machines-that-go Ping!, and soon we''ll be able to pluck energy out of thin air(actually, thinner than air) like apples off of an invisible tree.

Who, you ask, are the bold pioneers involved in this cutting edge science?

Let me answer that question with a question...

Where does a well respected, highly qualified scientist go after he's proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that Uri Geller and remote viewing are genuine article?

Well, for Hal Puthoff, there was only one worthy place to focus his attentions... the empty vacuum of space... that is to say Zero Point Energy:

http://www.forteantimes.com/exclusive/puthoff.shtml

[Edge]

Here's another link,and no I wasn't drinking I just didn't want to change the cap locks.

[http://www.disclosureproject.org/index.htm#Whats%20New

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Edge
Here's another link,and no I wasn't drinking I just didn't want to change the cap locks.

http://www.disclosureproject.org/ (http://) Glad to see you've found the motivation to master the Caps Lock key...

Now, what the hell does a wacky UFO website have to do with Zero Point Energy? I did find one link on the site that offers $1 million to anyone who can provide a working ZPE machine, but I hardly see how that proves anything about the reality of ZPE? It seems to me to prove quite the opposite regarding the working reality of ZPE.

Furthermore, I fail to see what ZPE has to do with your magical coat hanger rods.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Psiload

....pull-energy-out-of-your-ass scheme.




Don't go bashing fart-burners.. This is a legitimate source of energy..:D

[Tricky]

Originally posted by davefoc
2. Wow, does drinking water really work Tricky? I'm sort of a wimpy drinker but every year or so that could come in handy. Have you done any personal research on this technique?

It helps a lot, but of course, it depends on how badly you've binged and what you were drinking (anything with a lot of sugar will be especially bad for causing hangovers).

You may have noticed that drinking dehydrates you quite a bit (as evidenced by the many trips to the loo). You may have also noticed that after a lot of drinking, you wake up very thirsty. Your body is craving water. By drinking a lot of water before you go to bed you are launching a "pre-emptive strike" against your body's cravings.

Yes I have done personal research and it makes a big difference. The greatest problem is that the times when you need it most are the times when you are least able to remember important stuff.

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Diogenes




Don't go bashing fart-burners.. This is a legitimate source of energy..:D I would never dream of insulting the fart-burners, they're totally legit, but they're running more of a push-energy-out-of-your-ass scheme. Totally different concept than the pull-energy-out-of-your-assers.

[Edge]

Try this.

http://www.disclosureproject.org/index.htm#Whats%20New

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Edge
Try this.
http://www.disclosureproject.org/index.htm#Whats%20New
I think I'll pass. You've spammed us with the Disclosure Project WooWooWebsite before. It was devoid of anything either interesting or believable. However, I must say this is preferable to your former habit of cutting and pasting stuff from your www's and intimating it was your own work.

[Edge]

Talk about closed a mind.
There’s a radio interview and written version by Dr.Greer what ever the out come of such said devices, if real the implications are staggering.
It would be better for the world in many ways.
Or do you prefer the fossil fuel era to stay forever along with the pollution?

Onward and upward that’s the key to a better world.

:rolleyes:

[Pyrrho]

Sigh. Another product of illicit PhotoShop abuse.

[robbersdog]

Well, whatever floats your boat edge. You do realise that when people see that, they are laughing at you. You're a joke.

[Edge]

That’s the point when something is not real you can tell, but when something is or claims to be then you have to look deep.
I though you would like the picture as it's humor?

You remember what that is don't you?

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Edge
Talk about closed a mind.
There’s a radio interview and written version by Dr.Greer what ever the out come of such said devices, if real the implications are staggering.
It would be better for the world in many ways.
Or do you prefer the fossil fuel era to stay forever along with the pollution?

Onward and upward that’s the key to a better world.

:rolleyes: #1- The radio interview was on the Art Bell show.

#2- The interview was with Dr. Steven Greer, a UFO Kook who has such a history of outrageously false claims, that even his fellow UFO KooKs can't take him seriously.

#3- Implications, however staggering, do not override probabilities, and possibilities. The implications of you waving your kwazy witching sticks, and successfully snatching Randi's million would be staggering... those implications, and three bucks, will get you about a jug of Thunderbird.

#4- Fossil fuel is a necessary evil until something better comes along. Until the day Steven Greer is collecting bonus checks from his utility company, He, and all his other, "Watch me pull energy out of my ass! Nothing up my sleeve... Presto!" buddies can just shut the hell up.

#5- Hey, Edge... pull my finger.

[Edge]

Pull your own finger and what ever else you pull.

[Tricky]

Cute though your pictures are, Edge, there is a place called the "Banter" section for the fun stuff.

Let's get back to the topic of this thread. I'm curious as to how your search for "neutral ground" is going. How are you conducting the search? Are you double-checking by letting someone hide gold targets once you have established the ground as non-responsive?

[wert]

It's just edge reverting back to his old pattern.

When he's asked questions he can't *or won't* answer, he starts posting off topic nonsense and pictures.

There exists a topic specifically for his UFO stuff.

This topic was created specifically to address his dowsing claims.

Now.

Once again back to dowsing.


Tell us Edge.

It's now March.

This very month marks the year anniversary of your abject failure to sucessfully dowse under test conditions designed by, and approved 100% by yourself.


http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

Since you claim to have a "secret weapon" that will assure your victory in a re-test, why haven't you contacted Randi and the JREF yet?

And if you have, please tell us the some of the details so that we can help you get another fair test. (at which you'll fail once again)

Here's a snippet from your first test with Randi.

Note the bolded text.

Mike was to be tested for finding gold, his specialty. The target material he had chosen, and brought along with him, consisted of five quartz stones, nine "Sacagawea" dollar coins, a gold ring, a gold nugget, and a small vial containing water and a few panned flakes. He said he had always been successful in detecting each and all of these seventeen items, when his forked stick was specifically "tuned" to pick up gold — by having a small scrap of gold fastened to its tip.

Now all of these items are man made.

It's quite evident that you didn't "mine" to find them.

If you weren't lying about your ability to have "always been successful" about being able to dowse these items, it's clear that you should be able to find them under test conditions.

Now you can go on and on about "interferences", but the very fact that you proclaimed your dowsing powers to be working in the "open" test gives lie to these claims.

Of course, you've pretty much admitted that you lied about your results in the open test, so your credibility in just about anything else you might say is completely suspect.

Tell me Edge.

When you tested those "target" ideas sucessfuly before, where did you get such great results? And why wouldn't that place be a fine candidate for your retest?

Also, you've stated that your sisters old house was good for dowsing.

What would rule that place out a potential site for a re-test?

But really, these are small questions.

I really want to know why you haven't been in contact with Randi about winning the million if you truly feel that your "secret weapon" will prevail.

Every day you put it off is another day that we see that you're simply putting off your inevitable failure in a fair re-test.

Perhaps we should start a "Mike Guska Clock" starting from this month to tick off the days until you work up the courage to fail again. :)

[edthedoc]

What now is the point of this thread? ;)

[wert]

Originally posted by edthedoc
What now is the point of this thread? ;) To discuss the dowsing claims of Edge (aka Mike Guska) and his re-test with the JREF that he says he will pass with a "secret weapon".

When asked questions about when he will contact the JREF again for his re-test (as he said he would), he wriggles and squirms to avoid another complete and total failure as seen in the following link.

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

[Baker]

Originally posted by wert
To discuss the dowsing claims of Edge (aka Mike Guska) and his re-test with the JREF that he says he will pass with a "secret weapon".

When asked questions about when he will contact the JREF again for his re-test (as he said he would), he wriggles and squirms to avoid another complete and total failure as seen in the following link.

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

According to my sources, the test was set up to fail there was no way to pass it.
Here you can even look it up for the proof!
http://www.google.com/:D

[Edge]

Few people would be more thrilled than I if dowsing were proved to work. A whole new field of physical research would open up, the present-day laws of physics would have to be rewritten or at least expanded. This scenario is a dream of many a physicist; to find new fundamental laws of physics that better explain the world in which we live. But in the case of dowsing, proponents have had the possibility to prove that their ideas hold for centuries without any greater success in capturing the interest of the science community. The science community itself has flaws and is often narrow-minded to new ideas, but given several hundred years of time for evaluation of a few simple claims I believe the critical standpoint is taken on solid grounds. However, I encourage anyone interested in the field to continue research as long as the approach is serious. Simple truths about nature can't choose to hide from the skeptical minds and be seen by the gullible at the same time.

This is a good site to look at.
http://www.lysator.liu.se/~rasmus/skepticism/dowsing.html


Taken from bakers link.

(http://www.lysator.liu.se/~rasmus/skepticism/dowsing.html)

This could be a link to zero point.


Like I said if it just moved I would say your right but I can stop the movement and it continues to arch, I cannot make it do this on purpose no matter how I try.

In the field it's one hundred % accurate and that’s where it needs to be tested where mining is done.
The other way to check it is, when it's gone there, there is no reaction.

These things I have learned and checked on the spots where I have mined.

When your finding ounces of gold you just can’t believe that it’s gone as suddenly as it appears so you check and you find that you were right the first time that you checked with the dowsing rod and it is remarkable.

I haven’t been down south yet to see if I can find neutral ground yet, so I’m waiting, I might be in the field in Calli; before that happens.

I think many more experiments should be done and maybe they will and maybe they won’t.

[wert]

Originally posted by Edge
Few people would be more thrilled than I if dowsing were proved to work. A whole new field of physical research would open up, the present-day laws of physics would have to be rewritten or at least expanded. This scenario is a dream of many a physicist; to find new fundamental laws of physics that better explain the world in which we live. But in the case of dowsing, proponents have had the possibility to prove that their ideas hold for centuries without any greater success in capturing the interest of the science community. The science community itself has flaws and is often narrow-minded to new ideas, but given several hundred years of time for evaluation of a few simple claims I believe the critical standpoint is taken on solid grounds. However, I encourage anyone interested in the field to continue research as long as the approach is serious. Simple truths about nature can't choose to hide from the skeptical minds and be seen by the gullible at the same time.

This is a good site to look at.

I might mention here that the above is a "cut 'n' paste" from the site linked.

The grammar and spelling was a dead giveaway that Edge is once again presenting the work or others as his own.



This could be a link to zero point.
The discussion at hand is about your claimed dowsing skill Edge. Not discussions or "zero point". Another lame attempt to change the subject.

Please answer the questions from my last Post.

Please tell us why you haven't contacted Randi or the JREF about your re-test.

Please tell us why you seem to have so little faith in your "secret weapon that you claim will wein the million?

In the field it's one hundred % accurate and that’s where it needs to be tested where mining is done.so all those object you presented to Randi were "mined" every time you found them with 100% sucess via dowsing.


These things I have learned and checked on the spots where I have mined.Babbling about mining isn't going to change the fact that you seem to be weasling out of a fair retest with the JREF.

What happened to all that big talk about taking the million in a retest edge?

I haven’t been down south yet to see if I can find neutral ground yet, so I’m waiting, I might be in the field in Calli; before that happens.I'm guessing you'll claim it doesn't exist *as you seem to be doing* in a continuing effort to duck the test.

Once again, why not use the same spot you tested sucessfully before for the man made objects?

Why not use the ex-house of your sister that you claimed was "good for dowsing"?

I think many more experiments should be done and maybe they will and maybe they won’t. In other words, you're simply afraid to fail again and have resorted to repeating the old excuses since you have no new or valid ones. :rolleyes:

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

[wert]

Originally posted by Baker


According to my sources, the test was set there was no way to pass it.
Here you can even look it up for the proof!
http://www.google.com/:D Having shown your complete inability to add anything substantive to this or any conversation I've seen, I'll invite you to a long stay on my ignore list.

Plonk.